John Donaldson wrote:

>…Another issue that is outside of the control
>of anyone in California, or of any individual
>state for that matter, is the potential for the
>U.S. Coast Guard to initiate a national
>recreational boating education requirement.
>One could even argue that the failure of one
>of the largest recreational boating states like
>California to take any action on recreational
>boating safety invites preemptive federal action.

Well, if preemptive federal action is the result of California's failure to take action, then it's not really out of our control, is it? AB 1458 might still be on track if a) it was adequately funded by user fees; and b) it didn't contain such an obviously inappropriate exemption for rental powerboats.

>And if anyone were to think the normal federal
>legislative or regulatory process is not subject
>to heavy lobbying is naive beyond measure.

I dunno, I was working for the Coast Guard R&D Center in Connecticut, on small boat safety programs, when the level flotation standards were being developed in the early '70s. Compared to the little slice of the Sacramento sausage factory I witnessed at the stakeholders meetings, the Coast Guard's process was pretty clean. Call my position naive if you want, but I've been working with maritime regulations and regulators from the federal government for most of my career, and I'll take that process over the local version any day.

>One surely should also acknowledge that
>Federal regulation can be rather heavy
>handed and to likely would contain “one
>size fits all” standards – for example offering
>no exemptions to any vessel type, or to
>recognize prior experience, or to consider
>test out options.

Acknowledged, and I'm not scared. It's much more likely that federal regs will be consistent with what is already in place in about 45 other states, and only apply to powerboats.

>AB1458 was primarily a bottoms-up product
>with many, many hours put in by all the
>constituent groups including non-profit groups,
>associations, concerned individuals and
>industry to achieve a workable proposal for
>California boaters.

I guess "workable" in this context means "acceptable to the industry," which seems to mean "no substantive change to the status quo."

The proposed age-based phase-in was unnecessarily slow, and the 30-day rental boat exemption was just nuts. It made a very easy target for editorializing. I look forward to editorializing against it again when it comes around next year.

>Next, as we all know, the largest part of
>the funding of all aspects of recreational
>boating including education, law
>enforcement, infrastructure to include
>marinas, launch ramps, paddle boat put
>ins, etc. are financed almost exclusively
>by the power boaters via registrations and
>fuel taxes. It has also been pointed out
>that a material portion of rescue efforts
>are expended in saving or recovering
>missing or deceased paddlers. The specter
>of a more convoluted federal program
>would doubtlessly put a financial burden on
>the state beyond what AB 1458 proposed
>and likely step up the calls for collection of
>fees of some sort from currently unregistered
>vessels such as paddle craft.

"Doubtlessly put a financial burden on the state?" You're going to have to explain that one. And, do you really want to compare the costs to rescue and care for killed or injured paddlers to costs to rescue and care for the people killed or injured by powerboats? I'll play that game if you want, but I don't think the results will look very good for powerboats, and that's not even considering the non-accident health care implications. (Our local Kaiser hospital subsidizes paddlesports, and they don't do it just to be nice.)

>I believe everyone involved throughout the
>entire development of AB 1458 were
>working toward the goal for safer boating
>for all recreational boaters in California, no
>matter what type of vessel they used. No
>boater’s life should be considered of more
>value based on their choice of vessel and
>therefore only they should be educated in
>safe use of their vessel. All California
>boaters’ lives should be valued and they all
>should be asked to learn safe and responsible
>use of their boats.

Consider the source: John Donaldson works for Freeman McCue PR, representing Kawasaki. Kawasaki is the builder of the original "Jet Ski," the prototype of the PWC, the marine recreation device responsible for over 900 fatalities since 1989.

DBW has compiled credible data showing that an hour of PWC use is 24 times more likely to result in a reportable accident than an hour of paddling. I will restate the obvious once again: Divert people from thrillcraft to paddlecraft, and the risk of a serious accident drops by 94%. Yet the whole point of the industry's involvement in this exercise seems to have been to prevent that from happening.