Northwest Kiteboarding
Forum | Classifieds | Lost & Found | CGKA | Industry | Sensors | Forecast | Spots | Seattle | Decals | RSS | Facebook

Events | Photos | Search | Register | Profile | Log in to check your messages | Log in 

Oregon Legislative Heads Up
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
Nak

Since 19 May 2005
3473 Posts
Camas
XTreme Poster

CGKA Member


PostFri Mar 03, 17 1:17 pm     Reply with quote

Matt, very well said! I would disagree that there is merit in a life vest rule on the river. CGA life vests invariable have numerous buckles that could tangle with a control line causing serious injury or death. Given that it is exceedingly rare--or non-existent--to hear of a kiteboarder injured or killed because of lack of a CGA life vest, and that instances where kiters have been injured or killed due to getting caught up in control lines have occured, it is obvious that the merits of wearing a CGA life vest are dubious at best. At the very least the decision whether or not to wear one should be a personal decision left to the individual.

The danger of this bill is that once approved the safety nazis will see to it that it will NEVER be rolled back under any circumstance. It should be enlightening to many that some legislators are willing to support a rule in a sport they know absolutely nothing about--and do not care to learn. They'll quite literally kill you with their stupidity and greed.

_________________
Stay away from the jumping seals!

The CGKA is your advocate for Kiteboarding in the Gorge!

http://www.gorgekiter.com/join

Last edited by Nak on Sat Mar 04, 17 8:43 am; edited 1 time in total

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
237 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostFri Mar 03, 17 9:05 pm     Reply with quote

Yep, I am a bit liberal of center on the life jacket idea. There is absolutely no increase in safety with a life jacket while windsurfing. The choice to wear a life jacket, rely on that life jacket, and abandon the gear should definitely be made by the individual user. Having the ability to swim quickly to your gear, which functions as a better life saving device than a life jacket, is easily provable to save more lives than it costs. Couple that with a helmet, and windsurfing is safer without a life jacket if the windsurfer chooses to keep up with their swimming skills.

Kiting could be looked at somewhat differently and lean slightly more to the life jacket requirement. But ABSOUTELY NO requirement for a life jacket should be made in the ocean surf as it can pose much more of a danger than it could ever alleviate. Bottom line is that all kitesurfers should be swimmers first, life jacket or not. Do not kite if you are not willing and capabable of swimming the entire way back. A coast guard guy gave me a bit of reassurance when he said, "any one can swim a mile on their back" (without a life jacket).

There is definitely an issue with SUP's. Lives could be saved and would have already been saved with a "leash alternative" to a "life jacket only" requirement. The USCG ruling on this is a perfect example of not taking into account compliance rates. Given that a leash does not meet the requirement now, many SUP'ers choose to go without a either a life jacket or a leash. If a leash met the requirement, then many of those choosing to not wear life jackets, may choose to wear the leash and thus be saved from drowning. Again, I must say that the USCG has blood on their hands all because the guy sitting in some office made this decision without any real world experience with the sport they were making rules for.

But this issue is not really about life jackets. Life jacket use or non-use has just not been a problem to any degree in kite boarding. You will live if you make the right decisions about how far you can swim (do your really know?). And those who tend to make wrong decisions likely do not continue with the learning process in our sport. And that is the nice thing about kiteboarding - it weeds out many of the idiots before they ever get a chance to hurt themselves or others.

This issue is about a dumb law (in its entirety) that is not needed, and shows governments continual war on your wallet to line their own or friends wallets. We all know about government waste. That is what this is. Or at least this is where it starts. We need to stop this now and become vigilant for later stealth attacks on our outdoor pursuits. These agencies do not need the money, they want it.

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

Last edited by Matt V on Sun Mar 05, 17 8:57 am; edited 2 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
270 Posts

Obsessed

CGKA Member


PostSat Mar 04, 17 8:02 pm     Reply with quote

I think commissioner McBride made some good points.

Perhaps the law has some flaws (as has been pointed out regarding lifejackets) but I think it is important for us as a kiteboarding community to recognize that our enjoyment places additional burdens upon local community resources. Emergency Services and the likes are required to support the additional influx of tourists as well as the occasional mishap from local residents.

I'm not saying the law is good or bad (actually I didn't even read it), but I am aware that kiteboarding may not necessarily stay a free sport if we want it to sustain. I'm willing to throw a few bucks here and there as long as I feel they are being properly applied towards long term growth and sustainability of kitesurfing in the gorge region.

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
237 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostSun Mar 05, 17 8:09 am     Reply with quote

bigjohn wrote:
I think commissioner McBride made some good points.

Perhaps the law has some flaws (as has been pointed out regarding lifejackets) but I think it is important for us as a kiteboarding community to recognize that our enjoyment places additional burdens upon local community resources. Emergency Services and the likes are required to support the additional influx of tourists as well as the occasional mishap from local residents.

I'm not saying the law is good or bad (actually I didn't even read it), but I am aware that kiteboarding may not necessarily stay a free sport if we want it to sustain. I'm willing to throw a few bucks here and there as long as I feel they are being properly applied towards long term growth and sustainability of kitesurfing in the gorge region.


Thanks for your input and I highly respect those with this view. I agree with what you have said in principle. I too am willing to pay for use in the case where something has been provided to me.

Commissioner McBride has expertly sold this new law by creating a perceived monumental need. That need is the decline of the gas guzzling motor boat water craft owners sending money to the Marine Board. A portion of this money is used to support boat ramps capable of launching a 25ft power boat. But I tend to think of the decline of polluting motor boats that as a good thing. Don't you? Maybe a "hats off" and "mission accomplished" is due to the "Marine Board". I am not sad to hear the quiet return to our waters.

My problem is that, kayakers, windsurfers, fishermen, and kiteboarders, are not going to see any significant benefit from this bill becoming law. This bill will just give the Marine Board more money to dole out to the contractors they "like the best". The additional fee for your friend just starting out in kiteboarding is going to actually reduce future participation. And the the economy will not benefit from this. The Breweries, outdoor sports equipment shops, motels, rental, and lesson's businesses dump huge sums of cash into the local government in the form of business taxes and property taxes. They also provide jobs. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce could provide you with a comparison as to the effect of the tourism industry vs the potential revenue from every kiteboarder having to purchase a permit. In this question, I am sure that a $12 (with scheduled annual increases) barrier will cause more of an impact on the number of future kiteboarders supporting local businesses, than it will pay out in the form of kiteboarding or any other access.

Thus this bill can be seen in the future to reduce participation. Do we really need a law that pushes kiteboarding into a similar decline as windsurfing?

I will pay, but not to a government agency that takes for themselves and provides relatively nothing in return. And remember, you already pay taxes. How many times can we be asked for "just a little more government waste".

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

View user's profile Send private message
wannabekiter

Since 14 May 2015
103 Posts
Hood river
Stoked



PostSun Mar 05, 17 9:17 am    Boats Reply with quote

Hey matt v The modern ski/fishing boat has as much emission control as a car. Fuel injection with oxygen sensor feed back. Charcoal canister and a check engine light. Most boats are quieter then a diesel pick up.
So what's worse a bunch boats or a zillion cars drive out to hood river from Portland to kite?
If people can't afford $12 dollars then they can't afford to kite.
Harsh? Yes but that is how I see it.
Yes they should charge a launch fee for boats. I would buy a season pass. Very Happy

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
237 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostSun Mar 05, 17 9:47 am    Re: Boats Reply with quote

wannabekiter wrote:
Hey matt v The modern ski/fishing boat has as much emission control as a car. Fuel injection with oxygen sensor feed back. Charcoal canister and a check engine light. Most boats are quieter then a diesel pick up.
So what's worse a bunch boats or a zillion cars drive out to hood river from Portland to kite?
If people can't afford $12 dollars then they can't afford to kite.
Harsh? Yes but that is how I see it.
Yes they should charge a launch fee for boats. I would buy a season pass. Very Happy


I apologize for targeting powerboats. It would be nice if this proposed law did not necessitate examining both sides. And regardless of my personal feelings about powerboat activity, I would gladly stand by power boat users and defend their usage of the same waters that I use. What is at risk is not "my sides usage", but rather what these new powers granted to the Marine Board will lead all of us into.

Again, this is about a bad law. It is not about a division between water users. And I hope that I have not implied or created that. I am sure there is some animosity between powered and non-powered users that exists naturally. But please do not let the Marine Board divide us up into smaller groups and create "infighting". Lets make sure that as an outdoor using public, we look out for each other. Try me - I will stand up for power boat users if they are targeted by the Marine Board with a junk piece of legislation.

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

Last edited by Matt V on Sun Mar 05, 17 9:53 am; edited 2 times in total

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
270 Posts

Obsessed

CGKA Member


PostSun Mar 05, 17 9:52 am     Reply with quote

Matt V wrote:
I agree with what you have said in principle. I too am willing to pay for use in the case where something has been provided to me.


In my opinion the greatest long term issue kitesurfers face in The Gorge region (and arguably everywhere) is access.

The few (legal) access points we have often reach their maximum capacity levels during high season. And let's face it, how many more kitesurfers will there be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years....

We have had a couple of potential opportunities to expand legal access at Lyle and Arlington but I think it is important that everyone is on the same page when it comes to the benefits that kitesurfing brings to local communities.

If the Sheriff or Marine board show up at meetings stating that they can't afford to operate now due to the additional burdens from increased activity in recreational water activities... these are things that most decision makers would likely weigh on very heavily. If $12 / year makes those entities happy that they can now support the additional activity, well sign me up... I'm happy to pay.

If the fees never make it down to the proper local resources that are actually providing additional services, well that's the lawmaker's fault, not the kitesurfer's fault. After all, we paid our $12.

Just my $.02

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
237 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostSun Mar 05, 17 9:59 am     Reply with quote

bigjohn wrote:

If the fees never make it down to the proper local resources that are actually providing additional services, well that's the lawmaker's fault, not the kitesurfer's fault. After all, we paid our $12.

Just my $.02


Yes, and this is the primary flaw in the legislation - No accountability with an un-elected Marine Board as they are "appointed" by the Governor.

So you go ahead and give them your money. But I need a bit more assurance than government agencies saying that they are "stretched too thin" and will use that money so they are "stretched a little less thin".

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

View user's profile Send private message
quenyaistar

Since 21 Oct 2011
409 Posts
Cougar, WA
Obsessed



PostSun Mar 05, 17 11:43 am     Reply with quote

I have read a leaf blower puts out as much emissions in a half hour as a modern car does in 4000 miles of driving Shocked
_________________
1 OF 1

View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
wannabekiter

Since 14 May 2015
103 Posts
Hood river
Stoked



PostMon Mar 06, 17 12:37 pm    Access Reply with quote

I have to agree with bigjohn. Access is the next big problem. The event site, wunderbar, lyle and rufus are crowded. I am surprise there's not more discussion on opening up more launch sites.
Rufus and Arlington are a little too far from hood river after work. I would like to see Rowena developed into a advanced kiter spot.

View user's profile Send private message
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
784 Posts
Hood River
Opinionated

CGKA Member


PostMon Mar 06, 17 2:21 pm    Re: Access Reply with quote

wannabekiter wrote:
..... I would like to see Rowena developed into a advanced kiter spot.


Rowena is currently an advanced kiter spot and has been for many years.
I think what you mean to say is that you'd liked the launch improved for less advanced kiters?

It's a work in progress.... the CGKA is working with the park to facilitate improvements to the launch.
It's a slow process (state park and it's bureaucracy).
One of the big challenges is that it's a historical site used by Native Americans and that quadruples the red tape.
Yes - windsurfers have been there forever but they don't require improvements to the beach/landscape.

View user's profile Send private message
wannabekiter

Since 14 May 2015
103 Posts
Hood river
Stoked



PostMon Mar 06, 17 3:00 pm    Rowena Reply with quote

I would like to launch at Rowena with out doing drift launching or wearing hiking boots into the water. I must be getting old and soft.

View user's profile Send private message
Da Yoda

Since 12 Mar 2009
53 Posts

 



PostMon Mar 06, 17 9:31 pm     Reply with quote

ldhr wrote:
Also - they seem to distinguish between boats (non motorized boats) and surf boards (non motorized craft). The fees only apply to non motorized boats - not crafts.

They're definitely trying to apply PFD rules to kiting though.... Requires person using non motorized craft on river or stream to wear life jacket. Punishes by
maximum fine of $30.

You could be right! The language definitely says "non motorized boats". By definition a "non motorized vessel" (CGs definition) and a "non motorized craft" (bills definition) are the same thing.
The pfd enforcement states persons using a "non motorized craft" are required to be "wearing" a pfd, but are not required to pay the fee. It's not really clear if windsurfer would still be exempt from wearing/carrying a pfd based on their "craft" definitions under Section 1/9b.

View user's profile Send private message
ldhr

Since 21 Jul 2009
784 Posts
Hood River
Opinionated

CGKA Member


PostTue Mar 07, 17 7:33 am    Re: Rowena Reply with quote

wannabekiter wrote:
I would like to launch at Rowena with out doing drift launching or wearing hiking boots into the water. I must be getting old and soft.


I resemble that remark!

View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum