....stuff deleted

Of course not. I was just tossing out some possible scenarios (how ever
remotely possible they may be). On the other hand, I have been somewhat
concerned that rescue gear, pfd's, wetsuits, drysuits, epirbs, VHF radios
and
such could in fact instill a greater sense of confidence and ability in a
person or group which might entice them to take greater risks then they
probably should. This does not mean that I believe people should
necessarily
paddle without this stuff, but perhaps the emphasis in this sport should
be
less on skills and equipment, and a little more towards common sense and
applied intelligence.


Valid point. Equipment is only as effective after the human fails in some
manner. They do not ensure rescue or survival, they simply raise the odds a
bit (provided adequate training, maintenance, and protection from
sinking/immersion - if potentially damaged by same). Those with greater
confidence in such devices than I have may well enter conditions that exceed
their skills, potentially exposing themselves to more harm than necesssary.
They may also, as a result, develop some needed skills more quickly. The
proverbial two-edged sword.

....stuff deleted

Then you claim that "lots of people died because they didn't" wear
immersion
apparel. I doubt you would find on any of the death certificates, "cause
of
death, lack of immersion apparel." People die from hypothermia and
drowning
which resulted from them screwing up in the first place. Sure, being
dressed
for immersion might have saved some of the fatalities. Then again, maybe
not! I
don't know, and I very much doubt that you do either.

Most hypothermia victims (from memory, and no, I don't have the stats here
to back this up, though a search may provide same) die in relatively warm
water (65-72F) because they did not have adequate protection from the cold.
This stat surprised me, but it is an indicator how people may judge themself
safe in conditions where there is still considerable risk. You and I both
know that you can stay in the water off Calif. for much longer in a wetsuit
than without. Does that ensure safety or survival - no. Still, my son can
bob along in a wetsuit for hours in 55F water, for only a few seconds
without. There is no doubt that he, along with everyone else, is safer
wearing immersion gear.

When I stated that one should "always dress for immersion," I meant exactly
that. If the water conditions threaten one's safety (temperature or weather,
or both), one should (not must) dress for those conditions. This means that
if the water is 55F that you wear those articles of clothing necessary to
ensure your self-rescue and survival. For some of us, based upon skill and
experience (and innate amount of marine mammal blubber), this means
considerably less than what is required for my 71 lb. son. Each person has
different exposure needs and should make adjustments accordingly.

Like I said before, lots
of people have died while dressed for the water as well. It is simply not
possible to look at a sea kayaking incident and know that this person
would
have survived if they had only XYZ, or that that person would not have if
they
didn't XYZ. You can't do it!

I disagree. All accidents have root causes and the severity of damages can
be assessed for their common conditions. Explosive experts can design such
to produce a variety of effects and control all of same. We are talking
about some pretty easily identifiable conditions. Though they must be
analyzed individually, accidents and their results can easily be assessed.
While I agree that potential outcomes are not predictable, when someone
capsizes and complains about the cold, it is very easy to prove that they
were inadequately dressed and that their chance of survival would be greater
if properly dressed.

Is dressing for the water a good idea. Of course! But VB has his
reasons for
dressing light, and at least I can respect that. One must assess each
scenario
on an individual basis rather then just lump the whole damn sport into big
a
pile of "you must do it this way or else!" I simply cannot accept that the
very
same rules of the sport which apply to someone doing an expedition in
Alaska
MUST be applied to someone else doing a harbor paddle in Southern
California.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it.


Again, I agree with you. Each time I go out, I decide which gear I do or do
not want to take with me, based upon a variety of conditions. One piece of
gear I always bring, however, is the wetsuit. I paddle to get wet and I
enjoy being wet more if I am comfortable in the water. Yes, there are times
when conditions have been so cold that I didn't want to practice rolls
during the paddle and did not want to be in the water, despite the
protection. There are also times when I've been way too hot and had to roll
frequently to cool off. This is my choice of how I paddle. Others want to
avoid the water and assume they will not need the protection. Fine. On a
personal basis, however, I don't want to paddle with such individuals as
they endanger me.

Actually, I consider myself to be rather open minded. Certainly much
more so
then most of the people I butt heads with on these groups. I change my
mind all
of the time as new information becomes available.
As far as my arguments go, sometimes I actually have a point. Sometimes
I
just pick a side to be contrary. I mean, do you really think that we are
solving any of the world's problems here? I like to try to make people
think
about what they are doing. Sometimes I succeed. Other times I just ****
people
off. Oh well.


Actually, you confused the issue with the previous post. I don't think I
immediately grasped your point. This post was much more eloquent and
pleasurable to read.

Rick