A little while ago a trip report came through a mailing list I read. Paraphrasing, it contained this passage:
"One of us returned early having landed midway with shoulder problems. (I hope he got back to his car safely !!)"
I cringed when I read this. Was a paddler with a dodgy shoulder allowed to paddle back by himself? Could no provisions to assure he actually got back to his car be made? A phone call? Radio? In risk assessment land (you do do risk assessments, right?) this guy getting on the water by himself would certainly be a giant clump of yellow. Perhaps red. Now, to be fair, for all I know the injured-shoulder-guy never got back on the water. The place he was paddling is a major metropolitan area and, supposing it was not his throwing arm shoulder, from where they landed him a reasonably well thrown rock in any direction could probably have hit any one of a few thousand people or so. One of them might have given him a ride. Or perhaps his shoulder was absolutely, certainly not really that bad and he could make the couple of mile paddle back on his own with no chance of mishap. Or he caught a cab. I don't know for sure. But the circumstance does raise a question I think.
If we're in a shared experience circumstance, do we have any responsibility to our fellows in such a case as this? Suppose, for the sake of argument, the guy was going to paddle back. Is it ok to just let him go? Do we accept his assurances of capability-despite-disability, his you-go-aheads, I'll-be-fines and continue on our merry way? Or do we recognize them for what they could be; demands of social normalcy, ego maintenance, general being-stubbornisms? Do we therefore actively ensure, as far as we're able, the well being of our fellow?
I am a sucker for good animated movies. I think that The Incredibles is one of the finest movies ever made (no, really, I do). I also get quite a kick out of Lilo and Stitch. I won't spoil it for you, but it's set in Hawaii and it's about a girl, Lilo, who adopts an alien (like from space), Stitch, and hijinks ensue. It's pretty good. And, much like Lilo and Stitch, for the duration of paddles that I'm involved with, I try to ensure that I keep to the principle of Ohana. That is, nobody get's left behind.
If someone is not able to continue a paddle, for most any reason much beyond "I don't feel like it", I go back with them, make sure they are on shore and safe and usually, but not always, head back out. In the event this has proven to be entirely a pain in the ass. I don't get out as much as I want to to begin with and now I have to escort someone back because they didn't self assess well enough? Or move at glacial speeds because they didn't know they didn't have the stamina to keep up for the duration? I've actively avoided paddling with some people because I've more than once had to deal with some significant (to me) inconvenience because of them. And because of this Ohana stuff.
But, despite it all, I think Ohana is the right thing to do. I simply can't, for myself, discern any justification for not accepting a responsibility to ensure, as best as I can, that everyone I leave shore with returns safely. If we're sharing an experience well, then, we're sharing an experience. All of it. Even the awful ass parts like you have to head back early because you suck (heh). It's just not enough, I think, to say "It will be fine". I think you have to know that it's fine. For everyone. And, to be entirely clear, "returns safely" does not mean standing on shore back at the put in. It means returns to ones life in pretty much the same state you were in before you embarked on this little jaunt excepting any awesome you accrued doing cool stuff on the water.
Fun for me. Fun for you. Fun for us. Seems fair.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
resolute
Go read this and come back when you're done...
Certainly I appreciate the candor as well as the (I infer) good intentions of the author. It's hard not to get behind the idea that progress in anything need require only diligent application of oneself. Indeed, baring meaningless quibbles over syntax, I would not be surprised to have found myself to have written the first three paragraphs. I find though that I am forced to take issue with much of the remaining commentary, which I have taken as a somewhat broad condemnation of continuing paddle sport education.
The fourth paragraph starts out stating that it is in an instructors best interest to get students to keep taking classes. Let me suggest that this is rather a narrow view of the issue. I would say that, to the contrary, it is in an instructors best interests to get students to stop taking classes as soon as those students are capable, comfortable and happy within the realms the student wishes to paddle. Happy paddlers are more likely to attract new paddlers and it is this that is in the ultimate best interest of instructors. I know some instructors and they, especially the best of them, are explicitly and unquestionably interested in getting students off the books and safely on the water having the best times of their lives. And telling others about it. And them.
The fifth paragraph I interpret as a something of a broad based condemnation of the value of experience and perspective of others, specifically the experience and perspective of instructors. In particular I find myself in sharp disagreement with the assertion "...it isn't necessary." when speaking of, if I'm interpreting the text correctly, instruction. Following the logic of the position (i.e. "If you know how to do rescues in flat water (properly), then you know how to do rescues in rough water - you just need to practice") then if one can paddle in a lake one can paddle in a rock gardens, you just need to practice. I believe that is, self evidently, not the case. I will make the mistake of extending my argument into speculation by suggesting that if enough people deem kayak instruction as unnecessary it will, sooner or later, become required by those who have to go fish people out of the water.
The sixth paragraph contains actually a very interesting and, I think, valuable point. That is, "...students are expecting that the class will make them a better paddler. It won't." As someone who in fact thought that way for sometime, I quite agree. Classes, I believe, assist one in becoming a better paddler. A salient point to be sure However the following sentence, "Classes just teach you what you need to do when you go paddling" may be strictly accurate it is, I feel, well overstated, somewhat myopic in it's assertion and perhaps even a little specious. Classes can and should of course teach you what you need to do. However they should also teach you what is possible. What is to be avoided. And why. A class should help you to consider things about paddling even when you are not paddling. Provide a basis for arriving at a taste or to form an educated opinion about a circumstance that was not specifically covered in the class. Classes should help give you the tools so you can help yourself to become better.
The final paragraph, as it is clearly an expression of personal position and not an assertion about the larger world, is impossible to argue with. However I would offer one, not slight, change in wording and thus, perhaps, postion. This statement, "...I will do everything I can to make sure you don't need to take another one." might be written as "...I will do everything I can to make sure you don't take anymore than you need."
Like I said, I think the author is quite well intended and I think that I understand his perspective and position. But again, as I read it, it seems to be an overly broad condemnation of continued paddle sports education and could I think be reasonably interpreted as a broad suggestion that paddle sport instructors are cynics seeking students to "keep pumping money into the system. This, generally, has not been my experience. I have taken many classes and have learned something useful in most all of them. I have worked with many instructors and have come to consider most of them competent professionals performing a fair service for a (actually less than) fair wage without any overly mercenary intentions. I am resolute in my belief that what I've learned in those classes has materially aided me in being a better paddler, having more fun on the water and expanded my horizons with respect to understanding the possibilities open to me.
Certainly I appreciate the candor as well as the (I infer) good intentions of the author. It's hard not to get behind the idea that progress in anything need require only diligent application of oneself. Indeed, baring meaningless quibbles over syntax, I would not be surprised to have found myself to have written the first three paragraphs. I find though that I am forced to take issue with much of the remaining commentary, which I have taken as a somewhat broad condemnation of continuing paddle sport education.
The fourth paragraph starts out stating that it is in an instructors best interest to get students to keep taking classes. Let me suggest that this is rather a narrow view of the issue. I would say that, to the contrary, it is in an instructors best interests to get students to stop taking classes as soon as those students are capable, comfortable and happy within the realms the student wishes to paddle. Happy paddlers are more likely to attract new paddlers and it is this that is in the ultimate best interest of instructors. I know some instructors and they, especially the best of them, are explicitly and unquestionably interested in getting students off the books and safely on the water having the best times of their lives. And telling others about it. And them.
The fifth paragraph I interpret as a something of a broad based condemnation of the value of experience and perspective of others, specifically the experience and perspective of instructors. In particular I find myself in sharp disagreement with the assertion "...it isn't necessary." when speaking of, if I'm interpreting the text correctly, instruction. Following the logic of the position (i.e. "If you know how to do rescues in flat water (properly), then you know how to do rescues in rough water - you just need to practice") then if one can paddle in a lake one can paddle in a rock gardens, you just need to practice. I believe that is, self evidently, not the case. I will make the mistake of extending my argument into speculation by suggesting that if enough people deem kayak instruction as unnecessary it will, sooner or later, become required by those who have to go fish people out of the water.
The sixth paragraph contains actually a very interesting and, I think, valuable point. That is, "...students are expecting that the class will make them a better paddler. It won't." As someone who in fact thought that way for sometime, I quite agree. Classes, I believe, assist one in becoming a better paddler. A salient point to be sure However the following sentence, "Classes just teach you what you need to do when you go paddling" may be strictly accurate it is, I feel, well overstated, somewhat myopic in it's assertion and perhaps even a little specious. Classes can and should of course teach you what you need to do. However they should also teach you what is possible. What is to be avoided. And why. A class should help you to consider things about paddling even when you are not paddling. Provide a basis for arriving at a taste or to form an educated opinion about a circumstance that was not specifically covered in the class. Classes should help give you the tools so you can help yourself to become better.
The final paragraph, as it is clearly an expression of personal position and not an assertion about the larger world, is impossible to argue with. However I would offer one, not slight, change in wording and thus, perhaps, postion. This statement, "...I will do everything I can to make sure you don't need to take another one." might be written as "...I will do everything I can to make sure you don't take anymore than you need."
Like I said, I think the author is quite well intended and I think that I understand his perspective and position. But again, as I read it, it seems to be an overly broad condemnation of continued paddle sports education and could I think be reasonably interpreted as a broad suggestion that paddle sport instructors are cynics seeking students to "keep pumping money into the system. This, generally, has not been my experience. I have taken many classes and have learned something useful in most all of them. I have worked with many instructors and have come to consider most of them competent professionals performing a fair service for a (actually less than) fair wage without any overly mercenary intentions. I am resolute in my belief that what I've learned in those classes has materially aided me in being a better paddler, having more fun on the water and expanded my horizons with respect to understanding the possibilities open to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)