Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA26614; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 12:50:08 -0700 Return-Path: <kelly.wee.@merkle.baaqmd.gov> Received: from sparc1.baaqmd.GOV by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA12772; Fri, 17 Jun 1994 12:52:06 -0700 Received: from merkle.baaqmd.gov ([192.137.111.250]) by sparc1.baaqmd.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17933; Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:42:48 PDT Received: from cc:Mail by merkle.baaqmd.gov id AA771882306 Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:45:06 pst Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:45:06 pst From: kelly.wee.@merkle.baaqmd.gov Message-Id: <9405177718.AA771882306@merkle.baaqmd.gov-DeleteThis> To: windspeed@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Setting the Record Straight
For some time now I have been standing by the side and
observing all the discourse on the rescues from a distance.
But at this point in time, I feel I should help clear up
some misconceptions.
Since last fall, SFBA has been meeting with San Francisco
Fire Department, "Water Rescue Jet Ski Program" (Adhoc
Name), GGNRA, and the US Coast Guard. The main issue was to
develop as many preventative measures as possible to reduce
the number of search & rescue calls these agencies receive.
All of these agencies agree they want to contribute in life
threatening situations. It is simply they are being called
when no one can be located (non incident) or the stranded
person reaches shore and goes home, nobody calls, and they
spend all night searching
This is my assessment of the Players:
SFFD: Implemented their Jet Ski Program last summer. If
they are called, they will respond with the entire engine
company and two Jet Skis. They are not very familiar with
windsurfing rescue procedures (You guys probably have a
better understanding) but they are learning fast. They are
currently thinking about attaching a sled to the back of the
Jet Ski similar to the one at Kanaha Beach, Maui. They say
are dedicated to this program. The SFBA purchased a water
proof portable radio & donated it to them when the failure
of their radio threatened to stop their response. I wonder
how long they can keep this program when they are out on the
bay when another call (Structure fire) comes in.
US Coast Guard: We have been told that they do not have to
respond for search & rescue, but if they do, they must
commit 100%. This includes some very expensive resources.
Due to cut budget cut backs, they have to travel some very
long distances to a rescue site (base closures). They are
not considering charging for any rescue costs! It has not
been their policy for any other user group and I don't think
they will attempt to single windsurfers out. If it appears
they are changing their mind, the SFBA will get the word
out.
More likely, they will approach Congress with legislation
requiring Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs), safety
equipment, and hull registration. And yes, you can be cited
for not having these items if a law were to pass.
Windsurfing groups successfully defeated a past attempt to
pass such laws in the 1980's.
GGNRA soon to be the National Park Service: They feel
responsibility to regulate the windsurfers launching from their
jurisdiction. They do not provide any search and rescue
services but are trying to obtain a Zodiac this summer. They
will most likely charge for any rescues and it won't be as
little at ten bucks.
They have been very threatening and want to see the
SFBA take a more active role at Crissy. The SFBA is doing
about all it can with the limited participation of its wind
starved membership. At most, they want to see permitting
program similar to the Hang Gliders at Fort Funston. (Must
be certified, right equipment, etc. to even get a permit.)
What is the least? As of yet, time will tell. And yes, you
can be cited for failing to have a permit, if they adopt
regulations requiring you to have one.
To quote NPS representatives:
"In October the National Park Service will be taking over.
If you don't take some measures, we will." In all fairness
to GGNRA, they want the user group to solve the problems so
they don't have to. So, within the rather limited structure
of the SFBA, we will endeavor to keep them happy.
Three SFBA Board Members (Keith Epstein, Bill Robberson, and
Kelly Wee) are trying to develop some proposals and options
to submit to GGNRA. We will then publish the proposals in
the Newsletter and hold a general meeting hopefully in July.
A Note on permitting: Permitting would be specific to anyone
launching from GGNRA areas only. If Hull Identification
Numbers (HIN) are eventually required for sailboards, then
the state would likely require registration or CF Numbers,
which must be displayed on each side of the bow.
Registration fees currently run $5.00 /YR and go to the State
General Fund. Nothing would be allocated to
any sort of towing or rescue service.
None of these permitting scenarios are
currently being proposed. The SFBA is a Volunteer
Organization. If you would to contribute back to the
sport that gives you so much enjoyment, getting involved
with the SFBA is a great way to actually implement changes!!
If you would like to join the SFBA write:
SFBA
1592 Union Street, Box 301
San Francisco, Ca 94123
Internet Address Coming Soon
P.S. The June 29th meeting is not a
meeting with the above agencies. It is a Board of Directors
meeting of the SFBA and it will be held at Compadres,
Ghiradelli Square & PM. The purpose of the meeting is to
strategize and plan a formal response to GGNRA. If you are
interested in contributing please feel free to attend.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:27:38 PST