# NSW - Lifejacket reforms begin this weekend (1st Nov 2010)



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

Just a heads up to those that have forgotten, the NSW Maritime lifejacket reform begin 1/11/10

http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/wh/lifej ... qs.html#15

They begin this weekend and while there will be a 12 month advisory period its best to get it right the first time. For many of you this will may mean the purchase of a type 1 or 2 PFD will be required but it is the law and we should all respect that. For example many of my favourite haunts are known as 'Alpine lakes', including Lake Burrinjuck which I fish in the summer highs. While I am required to don a type 1 or 2 PFD when fishing from my kayak more than 100m from shore in enclosed water I am also required to wear one on all Alpine lakes at all times. Boaters in vessels under 4.8m will also be made to wear a PFD type 1 in enclosed waters at all times, a type 1 or 2 PFD if fishing Alpine lakes or a type 1 only if wearing waders. There are many other rules that may affect you, friends or family (Please click on the link).

I know that this has appeased a few in our fraternity but I cant really see the problem with it and will support it 100%. Sure most of my own lifejackets dont carry the AU approved rating but a personal flotation type 2 device that complies with European Standard EN 393-1993Lifejackets - 50N, as formulated, issued, prescribed or published by the European Union from time to time, will be permitted (Along with any standard or specifications approved by the Maritime Authority). There are way more permited types of PFD in the type 1 and 3 category (Such as 150N) so again I suggest having a read before hitting the panic button.

So this weekend I am off to Jindabyne to fish an Alpine lake during one of the busiest times of the year (Snowy Mountain Trout Festival) and I can safely say that Maritime and Fisheries officers will be in full force. Come NSW Cod opening weekend when I fish Lake Burrinjuck in the summer months the same rules apply and again, Maritime and Fisheries will be a visable entity. The Maritime trial 12 month advisory period should show they are fairly serious about encouraging safety without the initial police state but be warned, repeat offenders will be prosecuted. Some of these rules will affect me on a day to day basis and some wont, the great thing about this reform is it pats me on the back for always doning a PFD, be it down the coast offshore, visiting freshwater rivers or impoundments to freezing my but off at Jindabyne in the middle of winter.

I will close this thread with the following links that may help you realise why they came up with this reform:

http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/docs/wh/ ... Report.pdf

http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/docs/wh/ ... action.pdf


----------



## yankatthebay (Dec 14, 2007)

paffoh said:


> Boaters in vessels under 4.8m will also be made to wear a PFD type 1 in enclosed waters at all times


all good, us people in Adventures are exempt from that rule by 8cm (length is 4.88m). That being said, I think everyone should be required to wear a life jacket at ALL times when on the water in "small" craft (obviously ferries are not useful if you have to wear a lifejacket - but you may want one handy with the track record Sydney ferries has :lol: ).

An inflatable 150N rates jacket takes up so little room it just makes sense to wear one imo.


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

yankatthebay said:


> all good, us people in Adventures are exempt from that rule by 8cm (length is 4.88m).


People who ride in kayaks are kayakers, people who ride in boats are boaters...


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

I wonder how the latest muscle flex from our Nanny state will affect the SLSC's and their surf ski comps. So far I haven't seen any legislation that provides exemptions for them.


----------



## andybear (Jan 15, 2006)

Hi all,

Good point to remember is. Last time you put a PFD on, you were probably standing up on dry land. I must say, I have never tried to don one in the water. What i can say is, I have enough difficulty getting it on whilst standing, surrounded by air. I would expect i would fail to secure it, whilst in the water. Good enough reason to wear a PFD before getting afloat.

Cheers all Andybear


----------



## Davey G (Jan 15, 2006)

its gonna be fun paddling my surfboard while wearing a pfd... :shock:


----------



## RichB (Oct 12, 2010)

The Nanny will soon be forcing baby type car seats on Kayak users...It never ends...I dont know about
you guys but Iam a complete non compliant type of a person. The more of their stupid regulations they
try to enforce on us the more I want to rebel and tell them to ram it where the sun doesnt shine..


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

PFDs save lives. Helmets on bikes save lives. Seatbelts in cars save lives.

If you don't think your life is worth saving, so be it. But can't we all at least set a good example to those that look up to us? It's not cool to die needlessly.


----------



## johnH (Jun 2, 2009)

yankatthebay said:


> all good, us people in Adventures are exempt from that rule by 8cm (length is 4.88m).


Looking at the FAQs, the AI could be classed as an "Off the Beach Sailing Vessel", which means you have to wear a PFD at all times. http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/wh/lifej ... qs.html#15

The wife an I bought PFD1s with our yaks and have worn them from the start, so no big deal for us.


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

I dont care what rules they have you are crazy not to wear a pfd while kayaking on any water, the same as a car its not my own failings I fear but those of the ignorant others who may claim my life in the process.
I fish in an area with many yobo's and d*&kheads running around in all manner of craft in all states on inebriation.

For my families sake like Paff I have always worn a pfd and always will.

Cheers Dave


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

I need to borrow a pfd 1 or 2 for cod opening weekend guys...


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

A few strange namings but in general it's been generated with a great deal of feedback, unlike some other nsw current rulings (don't get me started on the solar buy back rate hike). Sure some rulings like surf life saving may be blurred and it's interesting the mentioned rowing straight off the bat. All government and water sport bodies have known about this reform for a year or so and the whole coastline safety system was tipped on it's head with the proposed merger of RVCP and the Coastguard (RVCP now Marine Rescue, CG didn't play ball).

All in all if it wasn't for a prominent figure mentioning it on a fishing forum recently it probably would of gone by without any recent AKFF acknowledgement. I am sure it's being played pretty low key as many boaters will be up at arms, at the same time they would use the suprise nature if a on water reminder as a gentle nudge in the right direction, rather than a Pushy poke. I can't say I blame them really, it's all about saving lives and statistics prove that lives could have been saved. Think about fences around pools, rock ledge anglers, tragic losses of life. Kayakers alive do the five? Maybe not but I for one believe people that don't Now wear these PFD's aren't looking beyond the big picture...


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

PFD's should have been mandatory a long time ago.

I like wearing mine for the storage aspect alone.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Irrespective of the statistical merits supporting the legislation, I'm sickened by the fact that we Australians are sacrificing our own personal freedoms at every opportunity. Compared to America, our rights as individuals are being eroded to the point where this is becoming a facist regime. As Aussie citizens, we don't have a US constitutional 1st and 4th amendment to rely on when Government decides to slug us with dehumanising laws that compromise our human sensibilities. I've had an absolute gutfull of these kinds of rules and regulations. For yakkers and the wearing of PFDs this is a classic example. If I choose to wear a PFD, that should be my choice because it's my body and I should have a right to choose what to wear on any given day. If surf conditions are favorable or unfavorable for the wearing of a PFD during transit, my view is that the paddler should have the ultimate right to make that decision - especially in the surf zone. While fishing, I generally choose to wear a PFD. I don't need a stupid law to tell me to do something that makes sense.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

DiggerRob said:


> Why is it you can't ride a bicycle without a helmet but you can jump out of an aeroplane without any head protection? Just doesn't make any sense to me.


My (limited) understanding is that you do need to wear a helmet for your first 100 jumps. It's then optional. I agree that this seems rediculous, as most jumping injuries and fatalities occur due to poor landings rather than chute failure. More rediculous still is that you are able to rock climb without a helmet, and most people do. It may have something to do with the number and experience of the people that undertake these activities. If it's mainstream, and therefore people don't get mentored into the activity (i.e. fully understand the risks), then there is more likelihood of people being killed by their own ignorance. Generally speaking, the more experienced that people are in risky activities, the LESS risk they take. It's the more experienced climbers that wear helmets. Making it mandatory would therefore be a good idea.

The best thing about making it mandatory is that it takes away the rediculous stigma of playing it safe.

Making comparisons is not particularly useful. The point that there are VERY good reasons to wear a pfd when kayaking and very few good reasons not to. Therefore, making it compulsory should have very little effect because rational people will be doing it anyway.


----------



## mal.com (Feb 10, 2007)

Davey G said:


> its gonna be fun paddling my surfboard while wearing a pfd... :shock:


This is where it gets nanny-state-ish, the people who deliberately go looking for breaking waves are exempt, ie. surfers & those on surf skis while the people who basically avoid rough conditions & only go out when its pretty well flat calm have to wear jackets.

And another thing, I'm a ocean swimmer, I compete regularly in 2-3km ocean races, I'm an active member of the local surf club. I generally fish less than 500-750m from any beach, I'f my kayak suddenly sinks out at sea, what do I do, float around like a dummy or take off the life jacket & swim home.

Like a friend of mine in Bali says "Australia's a nice place, but there's too many rules in Australia".

cheers

Mal de mer


----------



## Tarkman (Jan 19, 2010)

I have a decent one for the YAK. It's only Type II though. but it's designed for Yaks. It's going to be a pain wearing a PFD on the boat though, looks like I might have to buy the inflatable type which I don't like because you have to keep servicing them. My boat is 4.7 metres and moving around it with two blokes in it is difficult enough as it is without the lifejacket on although we always have them close. Plus I'll have to wash all the Fishy smells and blood off it every time.

Someone needs to come up with a decent lifeshirt with enough boyancy to make it TYPE 1 but less bulk so that it is easy to move around in.

My kids HAVE ALWAYS worn life jackets when on any watercraft.

The problem I have is that we are totally over-regulated. We SHOULD have enough brains to work out when we need a lifejacket on and when we don't based on the advice of professionals. We are eliminating Darwin's theory by not allowing the STUPID to die and hence in about 4 or 5 generations we will be overrun by numskulls! (or has that already happened?)


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

Nanny State: "A state whose government institutions are authoritative and over-paternalistic, interfering with and controlling people's lives."

I can live with some good old paternalistic regulation every now and then - requiring the reckless among us to exercise some basic common sense. Sure, it upsets some who are opposed to any regulation of our God given rights, and when it saves lives it defies Darwin's laws, but overall there must be some benefits for society.

I don't mind my nanny state making some basic safety items compulsory - like wearing seat belts in cars, helmets on motorbikes, pfd's on kayaks etc.

The new regs are hardly a draconian police state measures. Why the need to exaggerate the restrictions, and complain by tilting at windmills, beating up the straw man etc?

A PFD is required for Canoes & Kayaks: 
- On enclosed waters more than 100 m from shore.
- On open waters at all times&#8230;

What does that mean?
"Open waters" means navigable waters which are not enclosed waters.
"Enclosed waters" means any port or inland navigable waters in New South Wales.

Davey wrote:
"its gonna be fun paddling my surfboard while wearing a pfd..."

Feel free to wear your pfd on your surfboard, Davey. But you don't have to - Nanny doesn't require it. ;-)

Spooled wrote:
"I wonder how the latest muscle flex from our Nanny state will affect the SLSC's and their surf ski comps. So far I haven't seen any legislation that provides exemptions for them."

An interesting question, and not adequately dealt with on NSW Maritime's site - so it's open to confusion. The SLSC's should be organised enough to know the answers.

Is a "surf ski" considered to be a "kayak" by the NSWM? If not, no PFD required, and SLSC's have no concerns. End of story.

However, if a "surf ski" is considered to be a "kayak" (or canoe), then a PFD is required only in open "navigable waters". What does "navigable waters" mean? This term is not defined on the NSWM site, but the surf zone probably not "navigable". A surf skier in the surf zone not required to wear a pfd, as he is not on open navigable waters (or on enclosed waters more than 100 m from shore).

Bottom line: there are no requirement to wear your PFD while in the surf zone, even on a kayak (or canoe).

But what is the rule when surf-skier is on his "kayak/canoe" in navigable waters outside the surf zone? Better ask the SLSC.


----------



## yankatthebay (Dec 14, 2007)

johnH said:


> yankatthebay said:
> 
> 
> > all good, us people in Adventures are exempt from that rule by 8cm (length is 4.88m).
> ...


I was not being serious, was trying to make a joke out of the 8cm difference. I have never been on my kayak without a PFD.


----------



## chris58 (Nov 25, 2007)

its like this no one needs to have a jacket on,
UNLESS things go wrong then try getting into it. eg if some nut case hits you in their boat, your ticker plays up, tip over and hit your head the list goes on, you may not be able to save yourself. too late then....


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> "Ridiculous argument. Are there ever circumstances where people need to be compelled to act in their own self interest? If so, when? "


I agree, Ken. There are countless circumstances. People respond to compulsion. Compelling you to wear a seltbelt in your car is just an obvious example. Ever been in a country where selt belts are not compulsory? Nobody buckles up, and the cabbies laugh at you when you try to. Minor prangs = severe head/neck injury.

Now in NSW, the nanny state requires you to wear a pfd on your yak when you go offshore, or more than 100 metres from shore in the harbour. Why? If it is not compulsory, many won't do it, even when it is in their own self interest. Stats support the arguement that this will save a few lives (and upset a few people).


----------



## Southerly (Apr 20, 2007)

andybear said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Good point to remember is. Last time you put a PFD on, you were probably standing up on dry land. I must say, I have never tried to don one in the water. What i can say is, I have enough difficulty getting it on whilst standing, surrounded by air. I would expect i would fail to secure it, whilst in the water. Good enough reason to wear a PFD before getting afloat.
> 
> Cheers all Andybear


Good point Andy, when I was boating offshore every day in my own stinky I had a couple of floats with loops of rope attached to them in case I ended up in the drink unexpectly. You are 100% right, in the water in any sort of sea the best you can do is hang on to a life jacket you are not already wearing (far better than not having one though), that is why boaters are encouraged to have a grab bag and man overboard bag very handy. I used to put a PFD on if crossing a bar, in bad seas at night and any other time I thought there was a likely probability of taking a swim unexpectedly.

In the yak I would never put to sea without my PFD as the likleyhood of taking a swim is alwyas high, though I usually fish inshore or Syd Harbour.

David


----------



## yakattack (Jan 12, 2008)

PFDs for me no problem seems a sensible choice really have always nearly worn one offshore never inside as yet but all makes sense for safer experience for every one. I dont mind sensible safe rules if it means it can save just one life at some stage all good. We all think nothing will ever happen to us but guess what as the saying goes shit happens. Stay safe enjoy your kayak fishing adventure and go home to whoever you go home to.
Thats it from me safe yakkin to all

Cheers Micka


----------



## Grantos (Jan 28, 2008)

Just a point of clarification, the 1st November is actually next Monday. So all you "recalcitrants" out there, please go right ahead and enjoy your last week-end of reckless abandon.

Perhaps better still, why not take the opportunity to "get onboard" now, without waiting for the G-Man to compel you to! ;-)


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Exactly Salti! And then Rudd and Keneally stand on a podium in front of the world and hypocritically tell us that Jessica Watson is an inspiration and that risky endeavors ultimately make us all better people. Maybe they were referring to the part of her sailing trip took place outside Australian waters.


----------



## koich (Jul 25, 2007)

salticrak said:


> think about it,we have 20 million people with three tiers of government.wow.it is nigh impossible to dodge the rapacious revenue raising today.:


Yes

It's true

Federalism = life jacket reform.


----------



## bluezooky (Apr 17, 2006)

My take is people ain't happy but realize the government is never going to be seen to back down. It's announced today the approval rating is at a record low 23% they've surly given up any chance of reelection, god knows what stupidity they will pass in the few months.



paffoh said:


> A few strange namings but in general it's been generated with a great deal of feedback, unlike some other nsw current rulings (don't get me started on the solar buy back rate hike). Sure some rulings like surf life saving may be blurred and it's interesting the mentioned rowing straight off the bat. All government and water sport bodies have known about this reform for a year or so and the whole coastline safety system was tipped on it's head with the proposed merger of RVCP and the Coastguard (RVCP now Marine Rescue, CG didn't play ball).
> 
> All in all if it wasn't for a prominent figure mentioning it on a fishing forum recently it probably would of gone by without any recent AKFF acknowledgement. I am sure it's being played pretty low key as many boaters will be up at arms, at the same time they would use the suprise nature if a on water reminder as a gentle nudge in the right direction, rather than a Pushy poke. I can't say I blame them really, it's all about saving lives and statistics prove that lives could have been saved. Think about fences around pools, rock ledge anglers, tragic losses of life. Kayakers alive do the five? Maybe not but I for one believe people that don't Now wear these PFD's aren't looking beyond the big picture...


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

koich said:


> Federalism = life jacket reform.


Classic :lol: :lol:



eric said:


> This means that there are two million people out there right now with no government at all and that's aside from all the illegal immigrants.
> 
> They must have lives of absolute anarchic bliss.


Ditto :lol: :lol:

Speaking of which, shouldn't those people arriving in boats be wearing Type 1 PFDs? Perhaps that's why they're not continuing on to NSW. They're trying to avoid the stern warning complete with furrowed brow and finger waving.


----------



## murd (Jan 27, 2008)

Interesting thread.

Here's a scenario to ponder:

Surfers don't need to wear PFD's but kayakers do. But, if I wanted to do a bit of 'kayak surfing' on the waves next to the board surfers while in in my SIK, would I have to wear a PFD. Or, would I only have to put it on when I was out the back outside the surf zone in 'navigable waters'?

Are the Stealth skis exempt from PFDs by being a ski and not a kayak?


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I can see it now, Rick. The Authorities approach you drifting bare-chested down the croc-infested River X in a big tide, a couple bleeding barra strapped next to the rifle on the front of the battle-scarred SIK. "Hey you, you fugging lunatic yakker, that's not safe - put on a PFD!"


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

I'll start this by saying that I'm not a surfer and am therefore talking through my, um, hat.

Don't surfers have to dive under waves to get out through the break?
Wouldn't a pfd make that impossible, and therefore make surfing impossible?
Don't surfers have a flotation device permanently connected to them by the ankle or wrist?
Won't this flotation device allow them to get to shore under almost any circumstance, negating the need for a pdf?

Doesn't a kayaker go over the waves, allowing a pfd to be worn without hindering the activity?
Doesn't a kayaker intentionally avoid attaching themselves to their craft, thereby rendering it useless as a flotation aid in an emergency?

It seems to me that these two activities are therefore functionally quite different. Therefore there should be different rules. I don't see any inconsistency here.

However, requiring a person on a surf ski to wear a pfd appears entirely reasonable (but I also know nothing about this activity).


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

MrX said:


> I can see it now, Rick. The Authorities approach you drifting bare-chested down the croc-infested River X in a big tide, a couple bleeding barra strapped next to the rifle on the front of the battle-scarred SIK. "Hey you, you fugging lunatic yakker, that's not safe - put on a PFD!"


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## murd (Jan 27, 2008)

Ado, not all surfers wear leg ropes / wrist straps and are therefore not attached to their board. My SIK has built in flotation and can never sink, not even if a croc bites it!

This could get really weird over the next 12 mths.

And Mr X, no coment!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

murd said:


> Ado, not all surfers wear leg ropes / wrist straps and are therefore not attached to their board.


My ignorance uncovered  . I thought it was a regulation lol to stop renegade boards taking people out. I stand corrected.

They do have to dive under waves though don't they? Please let me a bit correct. I was hoping it was a good argument well put (a rarity for me).


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

occy said:


> If people can get over this ridiculous notion they have a God given right to do whatever they want, and if they could stop rabitting on about the country becoming a nanny state long enough to rationally debate the issue I think they will find they don't really have too much to complain about.


Sorry Occy but I'm not going to get over ridiculous notions of maintaining freedom and the status quo so quickly. I live on a 200m long laneway that has 30 vehicle movements a day and an equal amount of pedestrian traffic. Just yesterday I got a letter from Council telling me they plan on turning one side of the lane into a No Standing Zone and making the lane a one way street. Apparently our Local Traffic Command have decided that due to it's proximity to 2 major routes, it's capable of being be used as a ratrun and that cars currently "speed" down it. I've been living on this lane for 3 years. Due to the potholes, parked cars on either side and steady flow of pedestrians, it is impossible to speed down this laneway at the present time. As for the ratrun, it's proposterous because anyone planning on turning onto the main street is still rooted at the intersection.

Now we're getting a new street that increases risk to pedestrian safety because travelling cars have wider areas to drive faster in one direction, we're losing most of our off street parking opportunities, getting inconvenienced by this single direction and aquiring a set of new parking regulations (and potential fines) for an easement that has no current or existing traffic management problems. If they're so fixated on re-regulating this street, why doesn't Nanny just put up a stupid little sign that says, "shared zone". They won't because the smartest and cheapest idea lacks revenue raising opportunities. Damn it mate! There's 9 permanent residents on my street, 30 car movements a day and about 30 holiday let pedestrians from surrounding areas that walk this street. Council are clearly making rules for rules sake.

This is the sort of money wasting regulatory crap I'm talking about and it's happening everywhere. I have a lot to complain about. I'm sick of being needlessly inconvenienced by inane policy.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I feel for you Dan, but the parking debacle doesn't sound like "nanny state" to me. More like incompetent traffic management by your local council - and worth an angry objection from the residents. Vote out the inept councillors.

Does anyone here believe the new NSW pfd regs for kayaks/canoes (as currently framed) are unreasonable, or even inconvenient? [leaving aside the viewpoint that *all* regulation is inherently objectionable, or the thin-edge-of-the-wedge standpoint]?


----------



## blueyak (Jan 20, 2009)

Bertros said:


> Not I... it actually sounds rather sensible given our relative easy opportunity to topple and knock ourselves unconcious


Have I missed something? Are people toppling and falling unconcious whilst kayak fishing?

I'm not suggesting that pfd's are a bad thing but it seems a few people keep using the 'what if you fall unconcious' arguement to promote the need for a pfd. Honestly if falling unconcious whilst kayak fishing was such a concern the a pfd type 1 would be the only way to go.

So hands up if you've fallen unconcious whilst kayak fishing.


----------



## quaddy (Nov 3, 2008)

I missed couple of entries but for my two bobs worth I believe what you do to yourself is your personnal choice. Dont wear a seat belt? may harm you but nobody else. Not wearing a bike helmet hurts nobody but yourself. Too much big brother. 
Just a thought. Obesity kills may and causes many illnessess. Hope all AKFF members are not more than 5kilos overweight. The weight police are just around the corner. They will save lives and millions of dollars . Heard that before somewhere.

Q


----------



## YakMan (Aug 29, 2005)

Smoking kills way more kayak fishermen than drowning.Kayakfishermen are given the choice to smoke or not.......I don't smoke.... never have,don't use a shark sheild... never will and don't wear a lifejacket.Does this make me reckless???????

1.I do however take two pfd's with me.One inflatable.

2.I do however ocean swim 1.2kms every week day without fail to keep fit.

3.I do however jump off my kayak at least once a month offshore in swell to make sure I can get back on.Just out of interest try this with and without a pfd on.

4.I do however respect and understand the ocean and have the confidence to look after myself.

One of the reasons I got into this sport was the lack of rules and regulations.Thin edge of the wedge.How can you police a law without licence or registration?

Horses for courses.Pfd's are a good idea and in my mind the majority of people I see offshore on kayaks should be wearing lifejackets ......I just think we should have choice.


----------



## Grantos (Jan 28, 2008)

YakMan said:


> Smoking kills way more kayak fishermen than drowning.Kayakfishermen are given the choice of smoking or not.......I don't smoke,don't use a shark sheild and don't wear a lifejacket.Does this make me reckless???????
> 
> Pfd's are a good idea and in my mind the majority of people I see offshore on kayaks should be wearing lifejackets ......I just think we should have choice.


I must agree 100% with YakMan. When you are an experienced yak fisherman you don't need others who may know little about your sport making decisions supposedly in your best interest, on your behalf. Ever tried to find any meaningful stats on NSW fish kayaking deaths or serious injuries? Don't bother, because there aren't any. That is an irrefutable fact! :shock:

Why then the need to mandate the wearing of a PFD in most yak fishing situations? If there is insufficient evidence to prove that people who yak fish need to be protected from themselves, what is the real motivating factor in all of this? Your guess is as good as mine. ;-)


----------



## emufingers (Aug 11, 2010)

Governments are in a difficult position. There will always be people who react strongly to safety measures as an infringement of individual rights. Often they cite various reasons of individual capabilities to show why as an individual that he or she does not need to be protected. They make bold statements about lack of data and information about the risks. Governments on the other hand have to be concerned about populations. 
The population of kayak users has grown exponentially for the last 10 or so years. In that time there have been enough cases of risk of death or serious injury to convince governments to put in place some safety measures. In this case the wearing of lifejackets. Drowning or near drowning has been reported in the press in most States. Formal detailed mortality data has been available for at least five years through the National Coronial Information System reported and Hospital inpatient morbidity data has identified near drowning and type of watercraft for a similar period. If you wish to get the data you may have to pay a little money, but you can have to mount your case.
A simple risk analysis shows that kayakers are not all strong swimmers, they use waters where hypothermia is a problem, and they wear non-buoyant protective clothing to overcome heat loss and to protect from sun burn. Loaded kayaks weigh in at around 30 kilograms, a weight capable of causing incapacitating injury during use.
What is a government to do? Allow poor safety practices to continue and to pay for the treatment services for those injured and their families and relatives who suffer from damage by the loss of a loved one. The impact of poor safety management is not just on the individual. The government provides resources for search and rescue facilities and has a right therefore to minimise the use of these services through preventing incidents.
It is also interesting to note that those who oppose the wearing of lifejackets want State specific data. While the risks differ between States because of different water environments and temperatures, fundamentally the mechanism of underlying risk is surprisingly similar. No matter where you kayak the three key ingredients are a kayak, water and air breathing human.
I wear a lifejacket because I know that I have a far greater chance of keeping in touch with my kayak and being self sufficient without risking the lives of others recuing me or making my wife a widow and my children fatherless. I invest my ego in making sure I manage my risks rather than loudly shouting" look at me I am better than you see how well I swim and how free I am." 
Governments have to regulate because many of those who believe that they are invincible are not and many of those who copy them will be injured and may die. If people were realistic about managing risk, no regulations would be necessary. The louder people scream about sensible safety measures, the more likely the government are to increase regulation, because it shows that they are needed.


----------



## YakMan (Aug 29, 2005)

I am not blowing my own trumpet just trying to show the extent some of us go to stay fit and better prepare for incidents that may happen on the open water.My trips offshore are very calculated indeed.

As far as staying in touch with your kayak or ski when you fall off that job is covered with a lead we call a leg rope...I trust everybody uses one of those whilst offshore. Re the hypothermia and bulky clothes.....Wetsuit pants and a neoprene top along with a fishing shirt and a Ronstan dinghy jacket stashed in a hatch take care of that.
Surely people would not be so foolish to go offshore wearing bulky clothes that would inhibit swimming to safety should the need arise.The bulky clothes may also make it difficult to slip on those pair of finns that we all take out with us for the swim home should the need arise.
Please don't preach safety and the line making my wife a widow as I find that insulting. I take my safety very seriously.
I see things every time I fish Longy that just blow me away when it comes to safety and kayakfishing ....if you want to get serious educate people on how to rig there kayaks to suit offshore conditions or maybe people should achieve a certain fitness level and be able to demonstrate the ability to right and reboard an upturned craft or to paddle or peddle into a 20knot westerly for a minimum of one hour.

One of the reasons I paddle a Stealth ski is safety everything can be stowed below deck if the need arises. No tangling in line or hook injury or gaff wounds.... these craft are purpose built for surf conditions and large swells. They are buoyancy compliant and have all passed a South African surf lifesaving criteria.Should we not address the seaworthyness of certain brands of kayaks that venture offshore?How many of these craft would stay afloat in the event of a leak? What about mechanical failure ...how well would they paddle?

Lets get serious....Listen to people that have been at this for years and observe the lengths they go to preparing for an offshore fishing session. Consultation not regulation is the key.Too many people with way too little offshore paddling experience entering into this debate.

What I am trying to say there are many issues that need to be addressed before making the wearing lifejackets compulsory.The carrying of one on board the kayak would have been much more appropriate.

This post is not intended to offend or promote Stealth kayaks
.


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

very interesting.

people come at these things from many different angles.

i am struck by the weirdness of a situation where

a schoolgirl (JW) is allowed to circumnavigate the globe whilst a full grown, athletic, good swimmer in a kayak in a local canal that he could probably nearly jump across is forced to wear a pfd.

probably ok in the southern states but gets bloody hot up here in summer.hence i certainly dont wear one when fishing a quiet estuary for whiting in 18 inches of water :lol: :lol: :lol: 
think i have seen about a dozen blokes with stitches in their head from getting struck by boards whilst surfing. no pfd's for them.

i would suspect one of the main reasons is a lot of people are renting kayaks at places like the gold coast and many of them are not good swimmers. probably good to have uniform laws.

i think , to be fair, a lot of the blokes fishing rockwalls in little tinnies , standing on the bow and operating the electrics with their feet are much more likely to go overboard.


----------



## Grantos (Jan 28, 2008)

_kraley said:

Actually, it would be really interesting to hear why you don't think they are effective for you.

Besides the political, libertarian aspect, do you have an argument for why an experienced kayak fisherman should not wear one? Yakman offered one - that it might be difficult to reboard your craft in heavy seas - bu you haven't.

After all - the laws are there to guide all - experienced and not........_

Actually Mr kraley, I never said that wearing a PFD wasn't an effective option for me, or for anyone else for that matter. However I personally don't require a law to tell me when to exhibit common sense. From the many other opinions expressed on this thread, I don't believe I am alone in that view.

In situations of heightened risk, wearing a PFD would always be a sensible option. However the issue perhaps is that what is "heightened risk" for one person may not necessarily be the same for another. The NSW Govt, in it's wisdom, has defined what constitutes "heighted risk" for all (NSW) yak fisherman, thereby reducing everyone to the same common denominator. I don't have to like that fact, and I dont, however I must accept it and move on, as it is now the law.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

Careful Phil. By so starkly highlighting the dangers we face - particularly to the ignorant and inexperienced - you are making a pretty strong case for *more* regulation of open water yak fishing, not less.

The new safety regs for kayaks are only tiny increment on the old regs. And the change has a negligible practical impact on any of us currently fishing in open waters.

Up to today, we were required to wear a PFD only when more than 400m from land.

From tomorrow, we are required to wear a PFD on enclosed waters more than 100m from shore, on open waters at all times, and on our chilly alpine lakes.

We are weighed down by no other safety regulation, whatsoever. But we still complain of over-regulaton?

How does the *new* reg impact on me personally, from tomorrow?

The change to the safety regs means business as usual for the Longy yakkers. There is a small change for the harbour yakkers - with reducing the distance from 400m to 100 metres from shore. The new safety reg has zero impact on the lads that target bream whiting and jewies in our estuaries, or chasing natives or trout in our inland rivers. There is *no* requirement to wear a pfd. Not now, not under the new reg.

Those worried about the "thin edge of the wedge" should keep their head down. The case for more regulation of open water yakking is a strong one. The stink-boaters can't believe we fish at the same place, kilometers from shore, and don't have to bring any safety equipment.

If a yakker does get into strife and dies a couple of kilometres off the NSW coast (inexperienced, unfit, unseaworthy yak sinks, bulky clothing, unable to right or re-board, incapable of paddling/peddling against a westerly or current, poor swimmer, acute seasickness, drive failure, broken/lost paddle, run over by a stinker, tangled in their braid etc), the shit will hit the fan for the regulators. Even if the unfortunate deceased yakker was complying with our only safety requirement - and wearing a pdf.


----------



## Grantos (Jan 28, 2008)

kraley said:


> Grantos said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Mr kraley, I never said that wearing a PFD wasn't an effective option for me, or for anyone else for that matter. However I personally don't require a law to tell me when to exhibit common sense. From the many other opinions expressed on this thread, I don't believe I am alone in that view.
> ...


Fishing from a Perception Minnow like I do means that I need to choose the conditions very carefully, especially when fishing outside off Longy. Hence it is on very few occasions each year that I actually get to take my yak out there, as it is not as sea worthy as the other Longy regulars' yaks are. Does wearing a PFD influence whether I take my yak out or not? Not on your life. Hence most of my fishing off Longy is in my stinky, despite yak fishing for around 12 years.

However I do more frequently yak fish the stretch of coastline along Collaroy/Narrabeen beach, staying within a few hundred metres of the shore, but only when the conditions suit my craft. Even though my yak won't actually sink if it fills with water, its design is potentially more succeptible to taking on water than SOT yaks. As such I would never try to traverse breaking surf, as I would be asking for it!

However, the conditions that I consider to be of "heightened risk" would probably be defined differently by others with more sea worthy yaks and/or of greater experience. That is the point I was trying to make earlier on. Not all of us are the same, not all yaks are the same, nor should the NSW Govt be treating us as all the same.

Generally speaking, some examples of "heightened risk" conditions that come to mind include all rough waters (whether off shore, on the harbour, in an estuary, in a river or on a lake); at night; in poor light ie. fog; in very cold climate environments and in situations where there is increased boating activity eg crossing shipping/ferry channels. Plus, any other situation where the yak fisherman decides that wearing a PFD is appropriate and sensible. I don't subscribe to the view of the NSW Govt that just because you are in a yak 400 mtres offshore that you always need to be wearing a PFD, as some days the ocean can be as flat as a mill pond. I do though subscribe to always wearing a PFD when fishing from a yak at night, irrespective of the water conditions.

On some days you can be only 50 metres off shore yet the conditions warrant you wearing your PFD. Fortunately that doesn't happen to me as I choose my yak fishing conditions even more carefully than most!


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

Some good points, great its still a healthy discussion...

NSW Maritime and Marine Rescue had a very strong presence at Trout Fest and are ready to educate about 100 boats come tommorow. Squidder, Hammo and I got caught on the wrong side of a lake after hearing of a change in forecast. We spoke about our own abilities and accesed the situation. deciding to wait for a lull and charge it home. No vessels on the water, 50 - 90km wind gusts forecast and breaking waves I was suprised to see Marine Rescue doing a patrol of the lake as no boats were out. At first they didnt see us but on their return leg they past us, visually checking to see if we needed assistance, generally suprised we were wearing type 1 and 2 style PFD's and visually signalling they were heading off and they could tell we would be ok (looking out for an idiot factor).

It made me feel all fuzzy inside, as they were not just about sussing out lifesaving apparatus...


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

> Now for the arguments about not needing the government to tell you what to do, and ones ability to assess the situation. The answer to the first one is easy, because fortunately it's done and dusted. It's the law so get over it. The second argument is a little more complex. , it's the law so get over it. ;-) ;-)


 :lol: :lol: occy, just thinking how many laws ive broken today.

1 gave a bloke a backdated certificte because he was sick yesterday (totally against rules but really dont want him sacked)
2 gave someone a pap smear result over the phone (totally against the rules of my medical defence mob to give out any results over the phone, but saved this lady a morning off work)
3 signed a couple of ambulance request forms for another doc who's on holidays. (not my patients , so against the rules)
4 gave a patient a few free dressings to take home (against management rules)
5 ordered some tests on a 6 day old baby that isnt on medicare yet 
(against the rules, supposed to send em back to the hospital til theyre registered)
6 changed a hospital prescription to a general prescription (against the rules but saved someone driving 20 kms to get the same drug)
7 got the nurse to hold a kid whilst we immunized it (against the rules to restrain a child in any way)
8 i could go on for hours :lol: :lol: 
all these laws were broken to benefit people in terms of time or convenience (thats my story anyway)

perhaps the saddest one from the health department fun police is the new order that doctors and nurses are not to flirt with, or have jokes with patients.
now i always found telling people jokes whilst you stitch them up is very therapeutic as it relaxes them. but obviously ive been breaking the rules for ages.

heres my message re no more joke telling at work :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Grantos (Jan 28, 2008)

occy said:


> If you were someone like Yakman or Spooled 1 I might agree with you. If you aren't someone of that ilk you are probably talking through your hat.


At least I'm not the only one! :lol:


----------

