Snorkel Bans?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

That is a strange law.

I agree with the age issue, no one under 25 should be allowed to lifeguard. If insurance companys think you are a driving risk, I don't want to depend on you to save a life. (Hey, I know there are exceptions to every rule. Just not many.)
 
NutJob:
I agree with the age issue, no one under 25 should be allowed to lifeguard. If insurance companys think you are a driving risk, I don't want to depend on you to save a life. (Hey, I know there are exceptions to every rule. Just not many.)
Unfortunately, the vast pool of U.S. lifeguards fall well under 25. But many of these "kiddies" are very well trained, rest assured. When I see lifeguards acting unprofessional, I usually blame their supervisors for not cracking down. Having been such a supervisor, I can attest that proper management can make all the difference. If you aren't proactive and a good role model, your staff will get soft and careless.

Regarding the snorkel thing, I've worked in areas where snorkelers dominated in the water. It takes minimal training to lifeguard over these folks. I find it a non-issue. The biggest problems I've had are with folks that hold their breath at the bottom of pools for extended periods, and snorkelers that get too far away to observe adequately. The latter situation is alleviated with a pair of binoculars.
 
archman:
Unfortunately, the vast pool of U.S. lifeguards fall well under 25. But many of these "kiddies" are very well trained, rest assured. When I see lifeguards acting unprofessional, I usually blame their supervisors for not cracking down. Having been such a supervisor, I can attest that proper management can make all the difference. If you aren't proactive and a good role model, your staff will get soft and careless.



Well said. I totally agree. The age has nothing to do with it. It all boils down to supervision.

The snorkelling is a non-issue but seems like these lifeguards aren't capable of exercising some common sense, judgement & leniency on the rule.
 
NutJob:
That is a strange law.

I agree with the age issue, no one under 25 should be allowed to lifeguard.
If this were to happen, there would invariably be an extreme lifeguard shortage, pools/waterparks/waterfronts would close and contrary to what you may think, drownings would significantly rise.

chip104:
Well said. I totally agree. The age has nothing to do with it. It all boils down to supervision.

The snorkelling is a non-issue but seems like these lifeguards aren't capable of exercising some common sense, judgement & leniency on the rule.

Keep in mind guys that the lifeguards don't make the policy or the rules, they merely enforce them. If you ask the lifeguards themselves, they will likely say it is a silly rule. However the creators of the rule deem it as a viable safeguard against accident or injury.
I also think it is an age-related concern. I fully believe that a 25 year old works better without supervision than a 15 year old, thus making the argument for a supervisory necessity in lifeguarding. Some agencies have an auditing process that holds the guards accountable while others rely on the mere professionalism of the candidate to do as they have been trained. A further concern is the supervision itself. Unfortunately, pool supervisors don't always have the credentials in water safety/rescue, therefore they would not know what is expected of the guard. I see quite a bit if this in my area.
 
As a lifeguard myself (I detest the job, and no I don't work as one) I vote for blackmail. Also I can be an @$$ about professionalism so I'd be raising a stick until they got fired.
 
Gidds:
Sorry don't speak Aussie, what is a "breaking beach"? They enforce it by having the life gaurds yell at offenders and kicking them out if need be. I don't get it, I just can't fathom what safety measures such a rule provides.

Pardon the typos and crappy grammar - a breaking beach is a beach where waves break. At a beach with large breaking waves (say, 6 feet or more) you would probably have to go quite a way out to snorkel, which may present an issue with rips and currents. On a beach with small or no waves, this would not be an issue.

Having said that, you may as well ban body borders at beaches too - and surf boards, they can all fall under the "swimming aid" argument. From experience in my days of crazed body boarding of the biggest waves I could find in Sydney, I remember a particularly rough day, with waves of about 8 feet plus, breaking a long way out at Maroubra beach. I never used a leash on my board, as I found that with big waves, I didn't want to be dragged back by the board should I get seperated from it, and it got sucked into the wave.

Anyway, this particular day, I got absolutely drilled by a huge wave that closed out on me before I could pull out. Got seperated from the board and got to the surface quite quickly. With the rips and currents, I had to swim for about 30 minutes straight to get to shore. Remember, as a body boarder, I had fins... Now, remember how long it takes an Olympic 1500 meter swimmer to swim the distance. Now double it. Having been into the whole surfing and body surfing thing since I was about 10, I was quite good at all the things you were supposed to avoid. Me and my buddy would consider it abnormal if we DIDN'T come in from the water over the rocks in rough surf. Sounds crazy, but with a little practice, we got quite good at it, and often the easiest and quickest way back to the beach was over the rocks.

But I digress, the point is, without fins, none of this stuff would have been be possible. I wouldn't have been able to swim out easily, for a start, no way would I have been able to swim back in, that's for sure. The swimming aids are just as likely to save you as kill you. banning them wont change anything. To look at sea life, you will now wear swimming goggles, you'll have to hold your breath, and you'll be damn tired because you can't kick along at a relaxed pace with your face down while breathing comfortabley.

To me, banning "swimming aids" is kind of like banning ABS and traction control on cars, because some people will think they are safer and will push their car harder. It's this kind of retarded logic that screws things up.

I think it's time to sack the lawyers and teach people to take responsibilty for themselves.

Z...
 
Z it's time you move to the states...then again you may end up getting all those "ideas" of self-responsibilty squashed.

8 foot waves? You havn't lived brother.....(I'm assuming you measure front side).
 
MilitantMedic:
Z it's time you move to the states...then again you may end up getting all those "ideas" of self-responsibilty squashed.

8 foot waves? You havn't lived brother.....(I'm assuming you measure front side).

No no, we measure back side of the wave. And yeah, I know, they are babies compared to some of the waves you guys get!

As for moving to the states... I have been there several times, and I quite enjoyed myself. I would consider living there if I were able to set myself up a good job either near a ski resort or near some good diving, with some good motorbike roads thrown in.

Getting my "ideas" squashed is a non issue though, they are my values, rather than ideas. Having said that, I'm sure a good lawyer could get me thrown into a padded room by proving my values are actually a sign of insanity, if not psychosis... :05:

Z...
 

Back
Top Bottom