Lincoln PFD Mandate effective immediately

[Mark Johnson]

I like wearing my pdf. I also like the freedom too chose. Just sayin.

[Alex Divers]

I went to REI and read the labels on all there PFD's.
They are all pretty sepcific about not being recommened to be used in personal water craft, water skiing or any sport that has an impact.
They had one inflatable one there but it said in pretty big letters, "Don't use if any impact is expected"

I went with one called CAMINO by company ASTRAL designed for paddling and sailing, you can have it sit up pretty high so it doesn't interfer with your harness and it has minimal clips and straps for lines to get caught on, plus nothing that restricts head or arm movement.

I understand that while the State say's that we should wear them, using something outside it's recomended use is worse IMHO.

Alex

[JimSouthwick]

Actually, DaKine does make a PFD-like device that's designed for kiting: http://www.bigwinds.com/kite/category/47/product/1068
Pretty pricey and probably not USCG approved, but it might pass muster with the rangers. Any good? As a non-kiter, I have no idea.

[Jon Manwaring]

As Jim just mentioned, most Kite Manufactures do have some type of Impact/Flotation Vest available, that being said, most have this stamped inside the device "While this vest does offer impact protection and a bit of buoyancy, is not a U.S. Coast Guard approved flotation device". I have not read the law but I would assume that they require a U.S. Coast Guard approved devise. I've worn one for years and it is not much of a problem. I've collected a lot of extras and was always going to sell them at the swap meet. If anyone wants one let me know. Probably $25. Again they may not pass the Ranger Seal of Approval, but they kinda look like a real flotation device. The litewave is a bit larger than large the others are Med to Large.
JonMzee 435 901 1420

[Erik Holmgren]

Billy/Chris/Jake B/ anyone who knows...

Kiteboarding is now an olympic sport through ISAF right? Do the rules or regs for any ISAF sanctioned event or any PKRA/ISKA event require or even recommend PFD usage? We may want to look into this and possibly contact one of those governing bodies for the official verbiage on why PFD use is not (or is..unlikely but in fairness I DON'T know the wording so..)...as these groups/governing bodies will likely have the MOST impact and experience dealing with legislation or safety concerns, and are ultimately the greatest knowledge bases in our sport...and could see/understand just how dangerous setting this..ridiculous! precedent could be to our sport

[Jacob Buzianis]

No, they don't required it. They look at the kite as a flotation device and self-recuse equipment.

Jon-I will take the lite wave Life Jacket from you.

[Jason Klein]

Do we know what type of PFD the DNR is requiring that we have. I'm assuming not CGA Type I, but does it have to be a Type III, can it be an inflatable, or non CGA device like an impact vest that provides some buoyancy? If we don't know that, should we contact the DNR and ask?

some info on PFD types here: http://www.pfdma.org/choosing/types.aspx

[Mark Johnson]

I have seen many of those long distance swimmers at lindon and they never wear PFD'S.

[Alex Divers]

When the Officer informed us as a group at Lincon on Sunday of there intent to start inforcement, the Officer said the PFD would have to be Type 1,2,3 Coastgaurd approved device. The Officer also said that you did not have to be wearing it, it just had to be onboard the "vessel" which is board, kite, person and everything inbetween. The officer was also aware of the difference between impact vests and pfd's, and that they were disscussing all Utah State Water.

Maybe Billy you could ask for a clarification of the requirements?

Alex

[Ralph Morrison]

The Officer also said that you did not have to be wearing it, it just had to be onboard the "vessel" which is board, kite, person and everything inbetween.

So let me get this straight. I can attach a flotation device to my kite? That huge floating thing up there? There's some irony for you. That's what I'm going to do, figure out a way to attach an old beater life vest that I have to my kite.

[RickHeninger]

Great Job William "Bordy" (Official UWA Board Member, Kiting),

I wanted to do a little due dilligence before chiming in.

The UWA will be in full support of what you need. And let's keep "William" as the point man, Marty and Peter the official UWA co-representatives. Whoever else you think would be good. Just make it official so that there is consistency in the discussions.

Here are a couple of my thoughts when I first heard news of this (today)...

Common sense is the key phrase here, IMHO...

I asked myself, how many kiteboarding accidents or closecalls have the people involved WISHED they'd had a PFD on their body? If it is a very low percentage, or if the percentage is greater for the people who say it is an INCREASE in danger for entanglement, etc., then the fight should be absolutely to push the point that the Kite is a PFD.

The mention of "entanglement" or similar might open cans of worms... One of my thoughts is that we don't make it worse for ourselves by bringing in too many other issues that might tilt the conversation to areas that might limit more rights. Of course, safety is our FIRST CONCERN! But we need to stay calm with officials at this point not to feed unneccessary fires.

I actually think that the reference to the Olympic policy is also a good idea if it favors our desires.

I agree, talking to Dimitri et. al. about the work to keep the choice open for windsurfing would be a good idea.

Thanks, Let us know how we can help.

Rick Heninger.
UWA Board Chair.

[Rob Richey]

Disclaimer: This is a rant.

Unfortunately, I have nothing constructive to add to this thread. I can only say that after spending much time enjoying myself in Mexico, this topic seems absolutely ridiculous and another example of just how little so-called "freedom" there is in the USA.

I always dread having to re-enter the US and look forward to the day when I'll never return.

Meanwhile, I do wish you guys the best with this battle with anal bureaucrats.

And remember: Slack Lines Suck!

Saludos, Rob

[DimitriMilovich]

Sorry to be MIA so far on this important topic. Not sure I have anything useful to add, as y'all have already gotten to the windsurfing exemption statute.

One thought is to get the definition of "vessel", for starters. I can't in any way construe that word to mean "kiteboard" since you can't ride a kiteboard (without the kite powered up) as you would a canoe, powerboat, etc. It won't under any circumstances float a person. So there may be an exemption in that fundamentally a kiteboarder is constantly expected to swim when required. Being more of a swimmer than a boater, if you see my meaning (I'm also thinking "more of an aircraft than a boat", at times, too - ha - but I'll stay on topic).

The Utah laws don't require life vests for people who swim, do they? Nope. (hey, maybe there's a hot libertarian argument to make, akin to helmets for motorcycles). Thus, aside from the well-argued safety issues which Bordy laid out so well in his letter, there is the parallel to swimmers. Swimmers with kickboards, swimmers with inner tubes, swimmers with big powerful kites and huge grins on their faces.

I think the original intent of life vest laws is to protect people who go out in boats that are not prepared or able to swim to safety in case of a problem. That's reasonable and prudent. Children, older folks, non-swimmers, etc., all vulnerable, get taken out on boats and boats can sink.

Kiteboarders, on the other hand - and this is the crux of the argument - are always prepared to swim at any time, and are equipped with wetsuits to do so safely. (Could argue also the point that wetsuits have buoyancy.) After all, if the wind dies, which could happen at any time, kiteboarders have no other way to get back and are thus at all times assuming the risk of having to swim back. Just like a distance swimmer. Nobody kites who isn't prepared to swim back from where they are kiting, right?

I think an argument about the definition of "vessel" is the key one. These guys at DNR do not want to start having to spend their time pursuing kiteboarders and issuing tickets. They're underbudget and understaffed enough, I bet, and have all their other responsibilities for the good work they do. Maybe this would be a very acceptable way of them saying to their management, "Hey look, these aren't boats or vessels in any real sense of the word so the statute isn't applicable and we aren't going to bother."

I see the SUP totally differently, of course. I don't agree with the requirement, but could see the regulator's point, with the risk of children, cold water, whatever.

(later)

OK, just found an interesting piece of info that may be very germane. In 2009, the US Supreme Court,(yes, really!) with regards to a court case involving the USCG, upheld that to be considered a vessel, "watercraft must have a practical use as transportation on the water". Here's the link: http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/26 ... g-dockside

Seems like a clear definition to me. Rowboats, canoes, aircraft carriers - yes. Maybe even a SUP (and this would be a big stretch). But a kiteboard? No way. For if there is little or no wind, which is frequently the case, no practical use as transportation possible.

[Jason Klein]

Thanks Dimitri, but the USCG issued an official statement on this about 5 years ago, saying that "when utilized beyond the narrow limits of a swimming, surfing, or bathing area, a kiteboard is a vessel". http://www.uscgboating.org/assets/1/workflow_staging/Publications/479.PDF

I think if there were an angle to take on this, it would be whether or not we're beyond the normal swimming/bathing area. I could demonstrate that i could swim in from any distance from shore that I normally kiteboard.

I haven't heard about rangers taking further action to enforce the pfd rule after that first time a few months ago, so maybe this will just go away. Also, the inflatable ones meet the requirement and have pretty minimal impact on us for a cost of about $75.

[DimitriMilovich]

Jason - I would think that the 2009 ruling in the link above, being more current and being issued by the Supremes, would definitely supercede the 2007 USCG letter. Might be useful to keep in your collective back pockets in case this comes up again.

But happily, it may be a moot point as you just noted since the issue seems to have gone dormant.

I'm familiar with the inflatable ones from rowing, they are pretty minimal, so that might be a good thing to have regardless.

Happy kiting!