Paddlers to Travel from East to West, Racking up Points to be Champs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Year II Brings Two Times Last Year’s Event Lineup 

Takoma Park, MD (February 17, 2011) USA Freestyle Kayaking has announced its lineup of whitewater freestyle competitions events comprising the 2011 USAFK Freestyle Point Series.  Competitors will warm up at the Alabama Mountain Games in March and accumulate points to win bragging rights and to pocket a portion of the $7,500 purse at the USA National Whitewater Freestyle Point Series Championships in Cascade, Idaho in July. 

These kayaking and canoeing competitions will take place at eleven standalone freestyle and multiple-sport festivals, an outgrowth of the successful series of five events in 2010.  “While competitors may compete in many events to practice their competitive skills, they are required to compete in five of the eleven events,” notes Risa Shimoda, USAFK Chair.  “Points achieved through their top five finishes will count toward their 2011 total.”   Importantly, the Point Series Final and National Championships counts as a “double event.”
“As an athlete nothing is more exciting than showcasing your talent all over the country. The Point Series allows me to go state to state, river to river, have fun, paddle hard and hopefully earn the National Champion Title.” – Emily Jackson, reigning World Freestyle Champion and member of the US Freestyle Kayaking Committee.

New for 2011: there will be two classes for men and women kayakers, Pro and Expert. Adding the ‘expert’ classes will allow skilled amateurs to shine without having to compete head to head against World Champions. As in 2010, Point Series events will utilize official US Freestyle Kayaking rules and certified judges. Paddlers under 15 years of age will be invited to participate in the Cadet class, and competitors will be asked to participate in a project that introduces them to the host community.

Jeremy Laucks, USAFK Point Series founder notes, ‘With more events on this year’s schedule, the possibility of still being competitive without attending all of the events, and the addition of an expert class alongside the pro class, I’m anticipating a big increase in participation.”

2011 USAFK Freestyle Point Series Events

March  17-20      Alabama Mountain Games
April       9, 10       T’ville (Tariffville, CT) Triple Crown
                16, 17    NOC Shoot Out
May       21, 22    Green River, WY
                27, 28    BV Pro Rodeo
June      10-12     Lyons Outdoor Games
                17-19     FiBARk
                24-26     Gunnison River Festival
                29, 30    Missoula
July        9, 10      National Point Series Championships – Kelly’s Whitewater Park

“KB” Kevin Brown, a freestyle competitor and organizer of the Point Series competition in Missoula, MT comments, “The USFKA Points Tour is an awesome experience.  As an athlete, it is a great way to progress as a competitive kayaker and you get to train and compete with some of the best paddlers in the world.  As an event organizer, I can say the USFKA Points Tour can make your local community a whitewater destination, and can bring new exposure to the sport of Freestyle Kayaking in a community.  A community that paddles is a better community!”

USA Freestyle Kayaking is one of the paddlesports disciplines governed by USA Canoe Kayak. The mission of USAFK is to develop and promote the sport of whitewater freestyle to support excellence in the sport in the US and around the world.

For more information visit www.usfreestylekayaking.com.

Contact:
Risa Shimoda, USAFK Chair
risa@theshimodagroup.com
+1-301-502-6548

NSGAA is reporting the Mountain states show Sales Growth

The National Sporting Goods Association

Gozo Adventures is hiring sea kayak coaches

Subject: Job opportunities with Gozo Adventures!

Gozo Adventures are looking for two 4* qualified sea kayak coaches.
‘The positions will be for April-October with one person hopefully staying on and enjoying the delights of Malta’s ‘Little sister’.

‘The work is mainly beginner and intermediate day tours – some family stuff in the summer – and the odd bit of corporate. There is the opportunity to do some climbing / diving / archery with us too for a bit of variety.’
Anyone interested should contact Gozo Adventures via email: info@gozoadventures.com

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Fake Petzl gear floating around

Fakes are Not showing up in the US yet.

Petzl has announced that they have found some fake Petzl gear. Go to Warning regarding the presence of counterfeit versions of Petzl products to find out more.

The fakes have not shown up on US soil yet.

The counterfeit gear has serious performance/strength issues.

 Follow Petzl’s advice!

What can you do?

Only purchase from an authorized Petzl retailer to be sure that you are purchasing a genuine Petzl product.

If you have any doubt as to the authenticity of Petzl products, please help us and contact Petzl America at info@petzl.com or (877) 807-3805. For a list of Petzl retailers, please visit:
The Professional Products Dealer Locator
The Sport Products Dealer Locator
If the retailer from whom you purchased your equipment is not listed, please contact Petzl America at the email and phone number listed above

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Assistant Director for Outdoor Programs at Boise State University.

Below is the position announcement for the Assistant Director for Outdoor Programs at Boise State University.
I posted this last week and received multiple inquires about the current organizational structure.
As many of you know we have been growing and changing lots at Boise State and opportunities have begun to exist in the outdoor program for the addition of more professionals. With almost 30-years of service to the university, the OP has a large body of institutional support. This helped during our department’s recent merger and subsequent re-organization into a centralized University Health and Recreation Services (Medical/Counseling/Wellness/Recreation).

We started the search process for an AD-OP this past week to fill my former role as the Assistant Director for Outdoor Programs. The current Outdoor Program organizational structure comprises of an AD-OP (vacant),  OP Coordinator, three student managers and 25-30 student staff (operations/instructional).
Our current program model runs a comprehensive 4-season program – student development program, 100-120 field programs a year (2-10 day), rental business (250,000 inventory), climbing center,  summer camps, wilderness orientation programming, and custom educational programs for campus entities. The campus is perfectly located for 4-season programming. We have major wilderness areas, climbing sites, paddling locations, ski resorts, road and mountain biking within an hour of campus (most within minutes).The business model is unique in that it is both heavily student development focused but also revenue focused (often not seen together in a fiscally functional biz model).
We have committed to an expedited time line for the search in hopes we can get the new hire here by May 1st so that they can participate in a few critical summer trainings (operations/field).
The position is scheduled to close 2/28/11.
To enhance the distribution of the position announcement we are asking that you consider forwarding it along to anyone who you feel might know a potential candidate.
Our hope is to promote the position to to a broad audience of peers within the field of outdoor recreation and education.
Thanks for the help.
Geoff
—
Geoff Harrison
Associate Director, Education and Marketing
Boise State University
208-426-2628
gharriso@boisestate.edu
http://rec.boisestate.edu
http://healthservices.boisestate.edu
Assistant Director, Outdoor Programs
Campus Recreation
SA-0021-01
Boise State University invites applicants for the position of Assistant Director, Outdoor Programs.  The selected candidate will join our team to continue the quest toward becoming a Metropolitan Research University of Distinction.  The Assistant Director will be responsible for a comprehensive 4-season outdoor recreation and education program. The delivery of quality programming that serves the needs of the university community entails the design, development, marketing, budgeting, and daily oversight of the multi-dimensional program.
Scope of duties will include daily management of the following distinct program areas: a student staff development program, open enrollment and custom designed trip/education services; rental operations; climbing facilities; and a bicycle repair center. The Assistant Director will be responsible for projecting, monitoring and reconciling multiple budgets; developing and implementing risk management plans (incident prevention and response); writing policies, guidelines, and procedures; overseeing the hiring, training, evaluation, and supervision of professional, student, and part-time employees. S/he will work collaboratively with other units in Campus Recreation, the Division of Student Affairs, and throughout the University to enhance the role of outdoor recreation in the lives of Boise State University students.
You will have the opportunity to:
· Oversee daily business functions and program development for the Outdoor Program including: budgetary oversight, program area assessment, equipment purchasing and maintenance, facility/field-based scheduling, logistics, and operations.
· Be responsible for designing and delivering educational content and instructional progressions that are in alignment with desired learning outcomes for program, department, and university.
· Actively work to promote the program, increase overall participant satisfaction, provide a safe and healthy learning environment for staff and participants, and implement preventative maintenance and risk management measures.
· Oversee personnel management and staff development functions for permanent, student, and temporary staff through: recruitment, selection, in-house training, field-based training, scheduling, supervision, assessment (human, outdoor, education skills), and administration.
· Provide superior leadership, management and organizational skills.
· Work with local, regional, and federal land management agencies to maintain access to educational activity sites on public lands.
· Assist department with the planning, staffing, and implementation of special events and community outreach projects. 
At a minimum you should have: 
· Bachelor’s degree in Recreation Administration, Management, Business, Student Development, Leadership, or related field.
· At least two (2) years of experience in the administration of outdoor education and recreation programs including:    overseeing daily business functions and program development for an Outdoor Program, budgetary oversight, program area assessment, equipment purchasing and maintenance, facility/field-based scheduling, logistics, and operations.
· Wilderness First Responder Certification.
· A superior knowledge of contemporary university outdoor programming methods and practices.
· Experience with teaching methodologies and skill progressions appropriate for wilderness education programs.
· Exceptional skills and educational/teaching competency in at least three (3) technical outdoor skill areas (ex. whitewater kayaking, rafting, canoeing, rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, etc.)
· An ability to design and communicate clear performance expectations and learning outcomes, manage employees consistently and equitably, resolve conflict judiciously, and perform a high volume of detailed work with constant interruptions.
· The ability to work as part of a collaborative team to develop new programs, sustain current programs, maintain high facility standards, and provide excellent customer service.
The preferred candidate will have:
· Master’s degree in Recreation Administration, Management, Business, Student Development, Leadership, or related field.
· Three (3) years of experience in designing and executing expedition based staff trainings for outdoor recreational activities and performing accurate staff competency assessments and evaluations.
· Outdoor instructor and/or instructor trainer certifications
· Red Cross CPR/FA Instructor

Salary and benefits:  Starting salary range of $42,100 – $47,000 for the twelve-month contract.  Full time position with an excellent benefit package that includes: medical/dental/vision/life/LTD insurance, retirement plan, reduced tuition benefits, 24 days vacation leave and 12 days sick leave annually, plus 10 paid holidays, as well as other benefits.
Anticipated start date: April 25, 2011
To express your interest:  Please send a letter of application, resume, outdoor experience inventory, and three reference contacts electronically to Rene’ Delaney at rdelaney@boisestate.edu (preferred method) or:
Rene’ Delaney
Boise State University
1910 University Dr.
Boise, ID  83725-1711

Applications will be accepted through February 28, 2011.
About the University:  Each semester, Boise State University enrolls more than 19,000 students in its academic programs.  Boise State opened an 87,000 sq. ft. Student Recreation Center in 2002 and a new 17,000 sq. ft. Aquatic Complex addition in August 2010.  Boise, (population 200,000) is Idaho’s state capital and the largest metropolitan center between Portland, Oregon and Salt Lake City, Utah.  As a result, Boise is an oasis of business, athletic, cultural, and recreational opportunity.  To the north of Boise, forests, white-water rivers and mountain lakes provide opportunities for rafting, fishing, hiking, and snow sports.  Locally, golf, 21 miles of running/ walking/cycling paths, ski resorts, minor league baseball, basketball and hockey, as well as theater, museums, ballet, and opera are available for entertainment.  Temperatures in Boise range from 21 – 36 in January to 75-90 in July.  The average number of sunshine days is 234 and precipitation averages just 12.1 inches per year.  For more information on the university and region visit:  www.boisestate.edu or  www.boisechamber.org/
About the program:  The Boise State University Outdoor Program is organizationally housed within University Health and Recreation Services (UHRS). Campus Recreation, Medical Services, and Counseling Services comprise UHRS. The Outdoor Program reports directly to Campus Recreation and is housed in the Student Recreation Center. Campus Recreation at Boise State employs 17 professional staff members and 175 student and temporary staff. Other Campus Recreation program areas include: Aquatics, Intramurals, Sports Clubs, Group Exercise, Personal Training, Injury Prevention and Response, Massage, and Wellness.
The Outdoor Program offers a wide variety of events and educational pursuits to keep students, faculty, staff and alumni involved and active exploring the mountains, rivers and deserts of Idaho and beyond.  Each year, the Outdoor Program provides its customer base with: 100+ adventure-based instructional workshops/seminars/trips, climbing gym, student leadership development, bicycle repair services, custom corporate and group adventures, youth adventure summer camps and the regions largest four season outdoor equipment rental operation.
Please visit the UHRS websites or give us a call to find out more information about our programs and services.
http://www.rec.boisestate.edu
http://healthservices.boisestate.edu

Wyoming Bill stripped but still good and NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT

Contact your legislator and let them know you need this to pass. 

I posted an article Wyoming is beefing up its Recreational Safety Act so minors cannot sue. The original bill met with resistance and from what I’m told minimal support in committee and several valuable provisions was stripped from the bill. The bill still toughens up the Wyoming Recreation Act and you should still get behind this bill.

SENATE FILE NO. SF0079

Recreation Safety Act-waiver on behalf of minors.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Case and Representative(s) Brown

and Gingery

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to the Recreation Safety Act; clarifying and specifying assumption of risk relating to that act; modifying the listing of activities which constitute a sport or recreational opportunity; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming: Section 1. W.S. 1-1-122(a)(iii) and 1-1-123 by creating a new subsection (d) are amended to read: 12 1-1-122. Definitions.

(a) As used in this act:

(iii) “Sport or recreational opportunity” means commonly understood sporting activities including baseball, softball, football, soccer, basketball, swimming, hockey, dude ranching, nordic or alpine skiing, snowboarding, mountain climbing, outdoor education programs, river floating, hunting, fishing, backcountry trips, horseback riding and any other equine activity, snowmobiling and similar recreational opportunities and includes the use of private lands for vehicle parking and land access related to the sport or recreational opportunity;

1-1-123. Assumption of risk.
 
(d) The assumption of risk provisions in subsections (a) through (c) of this section apply irrespective of the age of the person assuming the risk.

Section 2. This act is effective immediately upon completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution. 

Get behind this bill means contact your local Wyoming legislator and tell him or her you support this bill and want it to pass.

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

New Frig Magnet!

Supreme Court says if Parents OK it kids can do it, except in Colorado were bureaucrats know more than parents or the rest of us!

Colorado Department of Human Services says Mountain Boarding is not OK for kids. 

Sometimes you read something so stupid you just can’t believe it. Here is the letter from Kathi Waggoner, Licensing Supervisor of the Colorado Department of Human Services.

Thank heavens for the government to let us know that skateboarding on concrete is OK, but skateboarding on dirt. Softer dirt is an extreme sport. Thank heavens the government knows better than the parents who have agreed to allow their kids to do this.

Even better our new Governor’s name is not the stationary. I suspect this letter catches him off guard. He is touring the state promoting Colorado as a great place for jobs and his bureaucrats are putting Colorado companies out of business. Mountain Boarding was created in Colorado by MBS Mountainboards. However, its home state has deemed the activity an extreme sport.

I’ve searched the Colorado statutes and regulations and have not found a definition of extreme sports. No law or regulation defines extreme sport. Of course the Colorado Tourismhttp://www.colorado.com/Office nd out you can come here, but you can’t do it!

There is no contact information on the CDHS website except this (anther agency that believes killing trees is the best way to contact them and the internet is just a billboard):

Colorado Department of Human Services
1575 Sherman St.
Denver, CO 80203
Tel: 303.866.5700
Fax: 303.866.4047

Reggie Bicha, is the Executive Director. Call him and let them know how out of touch this decision is. At the same time, contact Colorado’s new governor and let him know the decision is without any merit and there must be a way to contact CDHS other than by phone and mail. You can email the Governor Hickenlooper here.

However, that is not the bad part. What is bad is the government telling people what they can and cannot do. Educo Adventure Camp has mountain boarding on its front page. It’s not like it’s hiding the issue from parents. A parent has the right to say to Educo, I don’t want my kid doing that. The kid in the picture has a helmet, elbow pads, knee pad and gloves on. He is on dirt. You are going to tell me that a bureaucrat in Denver, knows more about sports than that kid or the child’s parents. The Supreme Court of the US said that no government has the right to tell a parent how to raise a kid subject to killing the kids. See Courtney Love in Outdoor Recreation Law and Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3767; 68 U.S.L.W. 4458.

Do something, send an email to the Governor and call the CDHS and let them know this is outrageous.

What do you think? Leave a comment.
 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Grand Canyon Overflights Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been released.

Another eternal noise war getting louder, not necessarily ending.

Grand Canyon National Park

National Park Service releases Draft Environmental Impact Statement that addresses air tour flights and the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park
 
Date: February 2, 2011 

Contact: Maureen Oltrogge, 928-638-7779
Contact: Leah McGinnis, 928-638-7903

Grand Canyon, Ariz. – The National Park Service (NPS) has developed a draft plan to address the impacts of aircraft noise on park resources and visitor experience. Released by the park today, the plan is formally called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Special Flight Rules Area in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. The document will be available for public review and comment for 120 days, with public comments due by June 6, 2011.

The Draft EIS was developed to address the mandate of the 1987 National Parks Overflights Act to provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of Grand Canyon National Park and for protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflights.

In order to restore natural quiet, a definition of what natural quiet is, had to be developed. Substantial restoration of natural quiet in Grand Canyon National Park is defined as being achieved when reduction of noise from aircraft operations at or below 17,999 feet mean sea level (MSL) results in 50% or more of the park achieving natural quiet (i.e., no aircraft audible) for 75% to 100% of the day, each and every day. The NPS considers 50% of the park a minimum restoration goal.

“Grand Canyon is known for breathtaking vistas, geologic landscapes, the Colorado River, a rich history, adventurous trails, wildlife, solitude – and natural quiet”, stated Palma Wilson, Acting Park Superintendent. “In the litany of the park’s attributes, natural quiet is perhaps one of the most important. Without its natural soundscape – a canyon wren’s descending trill, wind rustling through the pines, the roar of the Colorado River, and silence – Grand Canyon would still be amazing to look at, but it would lack something essential and vital to its remote and wild character.”

Through the Draft EIS the NPS is proposing a plan for managing helicopter and airplane flights over Grand Canyon. These flights currently carry more than 400,000 visitors above the canyon each year. Like all other uses in the park, air-tours play an important role in visitor enjoyment. But without better, more thoughtful management air-tour flights can interfere with the enjoyment of visitors on the ground. Air-tour flights also affect soundscape and other park resources of Grand Canyon’s 1,902 square miles.

Four alternatives are evaluated in the Draft EIS: Alternative A, continued current management (the No Action Alternative), and three action alternatives – including the NPS Preferred Alternative. All alternatives apply to aircraft operating in Grand Canyon’s Special Flight Rules Area, and would continue to exempt operations in support of the Hualapai Tribe from annual allocations and daily caps.

Key provisions of the NPS Preferred Alternative include:

Increases restoration of natural quiet in the park from 53% to 67%, by reducing aircraft noise in the park.
Allows for 65,000 air-tour and air-tour related operations annually (8,000 more air-tour flights above what was reported by air tour operators.
Provides long and short loop air tour routes, with a seasonal shift in short routes at six month intervals.
Moves most nor-air tour operations outside of the park.
Moves routes away from many sensitive cultural, natural and visitor use areas.
Sets a daily cap of 364 flights classified as air tours (50 air-tour flights more than what was reported for a peak day in 2005 – the base year for analysis in the draft EIS).

Increases flight altitudes near North Rim viewpoints.
Reduces routes in Marble Canyon.
Requires full conversion to quiet technology, also known as QT aircraft, within 10 years.
Provides at least one hour of quiet time before sunset and after sunrise every day.
Makes no changes to the four existing general aviation flight corridors.
Raises flight free zone ceilings to 17,999 feet.

The NPS Preferred Alternative includes elements that were proposed by one or more members of the Grand Canyon Working Group (Working Group). The Working Group was established under authority of the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (required by the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000), and consisted of representatives from the NPS, Federal Aviation Administration, air-tour operators, environmental groups, tribes, commercial and general aviation, recreational interests, and other federal agencies. The working group was tasked with assisting the agencies in meeting the statutory mandate contained in the 1987 National Parks Overflights Act.

“Protection of park resources is at the heart of this plan,” stated Palma Wilson. She added, “As stewards of these public lands, it is imperative that we make every effort to preserve and protect all resources, including natural quiet. The National Park Service Preferred Alternative provides for substantial restoration of natural quiet in 67% of the park over a 10 year period. It meets our stated objectives to provide for the protection of public health and safety; protect wilderness values, wildlife, and sensitive species; provide for quality air-tour experiences, as well as primitive recreational opportunities without aircraft intrusions while providing for an economically viable air-tour industry and extraordinary air-tour experiences for visitors.”

The NPS will host five open-house style public meetings to present the Draft EIS, gather input, and answer questions. Meetings will be held in Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Grand Canyon, Arizona; and in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Additional details regarding public meetings will be announced soon.

The Draft EIS can be reviewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grca by clicking on the project name, and then scrolling to “Open for Public Comments.” Comments can be submitted online at the same Web address (the preferred method), mailed to Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, Attention: Office of Planning and Compliance, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023, or provided at one of the public meetings. Comments will be accepted through Monday, June 6, 2011.
 
For information or questions concerning the Draft EIS, call (928) 638-7328 and a staff member from the Office of Planning and Compliance will assist you. Media calls should be directed to Maureen Oltrogge, Public Affairs Officer at 928-638-7779.

To see the National Parks Conservation Association comment on the DEIS see: Park Advocate Praises National Park Service Announcement Soliciting Public Comment On Restoring Natural Quiet
 
To see the Sierra Club statement on the DEIS see: Sierra Club Calls for Strong Action to Restore Natural Quiet of the Grand Canyon

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Wyoming is beefing up its Recreational Safety Act so minors cannot sue: Shot Down all ready!

I reported a new law in Wyoming is beefing up its Recreational Safety Act so minors cannot sue. 

However that statute has not made it out of committee.

Tough luck.

Lesser v. Camp Wildwood, 282 F. Supp. 2d 139; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16170

Lesser v. Camp Wildwood, 282 F. Supp. 2d 139; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16170

Jory Lesser, a minor, by his parents and natural guardians, David Lesser and Diane Lesser, and David Lesser and Diane Lesser, individually, Plaintiffs, -against- Camp Wildwood, Mark Meyer, Peter Meyer, and The Meyers Partnership, Defendants.
01 Civ. 4209 (RWS)
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
282 F. Supp. 2d 139; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16170
September 16, 2003, Decided
September 19, 2003, Filed
Subsequent History: Motion denied by Lesser v. Wildwood, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
16921 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2003)
Prior History: Lesser v. Camp Wildwood, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14025 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2002)
Disposition: Defendants’ motion to preclude use of evidence denied in part and granted in part. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment denied.
Counsel: [**1] For Plaintiffs: Kevin L. Mosley, Esq. Of Counsel, Shafran & Mosley, New York, NY.
For Defendants: Stephen D. Straus, Esq., Gerard Benvenuto, Esq. Of Counsel, Traub Eglin Lieberman Straus, Hawthorne, NY
Judges: Robert W. Sweet, U.S.D.J.
Opinion BY: Robert W. Sweet
Opinion: [*140] Sweet, D.J.
The defendants Camp Wildwood, Mark Meyer, Peter Meyer and the Meyers Partnership, have made two motions: (1) to preclude the use at trial of evidence, including opinions and testimony, from plaintiffs’ retained experts on the grounds that the opinions and conclusions do not meet the standards of reliability imposed by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) and related cases; and (2) for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for negligent supervision and for premises liability.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to preclude the use of evidence is denied in part and granted in part, and the motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

[*141] Prior Proceedings

The Lessers commenced this action on April 10, 2001 in New York State court. On May 16, 2001, the action was removed to the United States District [**2] Court, Southern District of New York on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Discovery was concluded on May 14, 2003.
The motion by defendants to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ experts was submitted in conjunction with defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligent supervision and premises liability claims. Both motions were filed on June 4, 2003. After submission of briefs, the motions were considered fully submitted on July 9, 2003.

Facts

The following facts are taken from the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements and, as required, are construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, as applicable. They do not constitute findings of fact by the Court.
In the summer of 2000, plaintiff Jory Lesser, then 12 years old, was a camper at Camp Wildwood, a summer camp in Bridgton, Maine owned and managed by the defendants. On July 4, 2000, Jory Lesser was injured at the camp when a pine tree fell on him during a thunderstorm which arose after the start of a fireworks display on the waterfront of the camp.
Each summer, the camp services approximately 200 boys ranging from eight to fifteen years of age. The boys are divided by age into groups [**3] and housed with their peers in cabins.
The camp is an accredited member of the American Camping Association, (“ACA “), a private non-profit organization that promulgates standards for camps throughout the United States. The camp is also licensed by the state of Maine.
Pursuant to state licensing requirements and the ACA accreditation process the camp is subject to inspection by both entities.
In connection with their ACA accreditation requirements, the camp is required to have procedures in place for emergency situations. With respect to dangers posed by severe weather conditions, the camp had the following protocol:

Severe Storm

In the case of anticipated high winds, heavy rain or electrical storm, the camp will be notified of storm warnings by the Bridgton Police Department.
The campers and staff are brought to upper camp (away from the waterfront and densely treed areas) and placed along the walls of the Gym for safety until the storm has passed and Head of Maintenance and Admin have had an opportunity to walk the grounds and identify the hazards and damage. (Naturally, if the Police Chief believes the impending storm warrants evacuation to [**4] a prepared area, that will be our response.)

Unexpected Storms

Storms sometimes build with amazing speed and can slam into Wildwood from the lake with little or no warning.
In this event, everyone will be evacuated from the waterfront and lower camp immediately. Counselors will escort all campers to the gym where a count will be taken and boys and staff will take protective positions along the gym walls until Admin declares an “All-Clear.” No one will leave the building until possible damage has been located and assessed by Maintenance and Admin. Decisions will be made at that time, based on all available information, of which further course to follow and directions to [*142] staff and campers will be given accordingly.
Straus Decl. Exh. C.
The camp also has procedures for tree maintenance. The camp’s caretaker, Glenn Zaidman, inspects the bushes and trees in the active areas of the camp on a daily basis. Zaidman is not a licensed arborist, and is not licensed to inspect trees. If Zaidman notices any problems, he contacts local arborist Paul Protty of Protty Tree Service. The plaintiffs dispute this, noting only that Protty visited the camp on [**5] occasion “to undertake certain tree care matters, if requested by defendants.” Pl. Rule 56.1 Statement, at 5. The defendants describe Protty’s inspections as consisting of “looking at each tree with the naked eye and binoculars for any external signs of fungal infection or rot and knocking on the tree to check for [hollow] areas or easily peeled bark,” as well as “observing trees on windy days and climbing trees when necessary.”
Def. Rule 56.1 Statement at 5. The plaintiffs note that Protty could not testify with certainty that he inspected the tree which fell on Jory Lesser, and did not inspect the tree at or around the point where it failed — 15 to 20 feet above the ground. See Pl. Rule 56.1 Statement at 5.
The fireworks display was set up and launched by Zaidman. In addition to being the camp’s caretaker, Zaidman is a pyrotechnician licensed by the State of Maine to discharge fireworks. Zaidman testified that he periodically and repeatedly checked the weather on the internet at “weather.com Yahoo.” Straus Decl. Exh. D at 69. The plaintiffs dispute this, citing the testimony of one of the defendants that “in the year 2000 he [Zaidman] wanted nothing to do with computers. [**6] “ Pl. Rule 56.1 Statement at 9. The plaintiffs also note that the possibility of thunderstorms had been noted by the National Weather Service as early as 9:30 PM on July 3. Id. at 9-10.
The fireworks display commenced sometime after sunset, which was at 8:29 P.M. There were approximately 800 counselors, staff and campers in attendance.
According to the defendants, there was no wind or rain when the display commenced, although plaintiffs note that defendant Mark Meyer testified that the sky was overcast after dinner, around 7 P.M. Soon after the fireworks display commenced, it started to rain. The rain and wind intensified in a very short period of time. Defendants Mark Meyer and Peter Meyer and non-party Daniel Isdaner testified that they and “all counselors in attendance immediately shouted instructions to evacuate the beachfront and seek shelter in nearby bunks.” Def. Rule 56.1 Statement at 6.
Plaintiff Jory Lesser acknowledges having heard and heeded the shouted instructions and proceeded through the Junior Grove. The defendants assert that Jory Lesser was heading toward the bunks, Def. Rule 56.1 Statement at 7, but plaintiffs counter that he “was lost and confused and never [**7] saw a bunk.” Pl. Rule 56.1 Statement at 13 (citing Mosley Decl. Exh. G at 46-48 (J. Lesser Dep.). While in the Junior Grove, Jory Lesser was struck and injured by a falling tree. The trunk of the tree snapped approximately 15-20 feet from the ground, and the portion of the tree that fell was approximately 100 feet in length.
Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony
Standard of Review
The standard for the admissibility of expert testimony is set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified [*143] as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
The standard was the subject of extensive analysis by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), [**8] and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999). Daubert charges “trial judges with the responsibility of acting as ‘gatekeepers,’” in light of the fact that “the Federal Rules of Evidence ‘assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’” United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 99-100 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). Thus, “the determination as to the relevance and reliability of such evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court clarified that this gatekeeper function applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific testimony. 526 U.S. at 147 (explaining that Rule 702 makes “no relevant distinction between ‘scientific’ knowledge and technical ‘ or other specialized’ knowledge. It makes clear that any such knowledge might become the subject of expert testimony.”).
The Supreme Court provided district courts with a checklist for assessing [**9] the reliability of expert testimony. This list of “specific factors” “neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case.” Id. at 141. Listed considerations include whether an expert’s theory can be tested, “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication,” “the known or potential rate of error”, and “general acceptance.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-594. As repeatedly stressed, the “list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive.” Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 151. See also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594 (“The inquiry envisioned by Rule 702 is, we emphasize, a flexible one.”); Amorgianos v. AMTRAK, 303 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 2002) (“The Daubert inquiry is fluid and will necessarily vary from case to case.”). Thus, “the trial court is to use its discretion to determine what are reasonable criteria of reliability and whether the proposed testimony meets those criteria based on the peculiarities of the case before it.” Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 522 (2001).
However, “the Rules’ basic standard of relevance . . . is a liberal one,” [**10] Daubert, 509 U.S. at 587, and “the district court’s Daubert gatekeeping role does not permit the district court, in ruling on evidentiary sufficiency, to reject admissible expert testimony.” Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 267-268. As the Advisory Committee noted, “A review of the caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Comm. Notes.

The Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Tree Expert is Admissible

The plaintiffs retained Terry A. Tattar, Ph.D., a forestry and tree pathology expert, to diagnose the tree that fell on the plaintiff Jory Lesser. Dr. Tattar holds a doctorate in the field of “tree decay,” and is often asked to teach about hazardous trees. See Mosley Decl. Exh. C (Tattar curriculum vitae). He has authored books [*144] and journal articles on tree pathology and diagnosis. Id.
Defendants argue that the opinions of Dr. Tattar were not based on empirical testing, that his opinions have not been subjected to review, analysis or criticism by his peers, and that because his conclusions are based on speculation, there are no known or potential rates [**11] of error.
Dr. Tattar was not able to conduct any empirical testing on the subject tree because the defendants destroyed the tree. Accordingly, Dr. Tattar relied on photographs, depositions by both parties and non-party witnesses, forestry texts, and a report by Donald Whitney, a tree expert retained by the defendants, in forming his opinion.
Dr. Tattar’s report states that the subject tree had an “abnormally small diameter . . . for its height,” and would therefore be likely to fail in a wind storm. Mosley Decl. Exh. B. The report also notes the presence in the tree of “an electrical insulator that had woody stem tissue grown over it . . .” Id. The attachment of such an insulator causes wounds to the tree, which would lead to infections and “to strength loss and to ultimate failure of the trunk.” Id. The report also concludes that the discoloration of the outer surface of the tree combined with the manner in which the tree broke suggest that infection was a contributing cause of the tree’s failure.
Dr. Tattar is well-qualified to offer an opinion on any pathologies to which the subject tree may have been subjected. Defendants, however, question whether Dr. Tattar has performed [**12] sufficient empirical testing to support the conclusions he makes as to the subject tree. Defendants note that despite the unavailability of the tree, Dr. Tattar has not examined any of the other trees in the same grove to see whether they are also abnormally thin or whether they also contained similar implements that would have caused similar infections.
Neither Daubert nor Kumho Tire requires physical examination where informed and reasonable empirical inferences can be made from photographic evidence and the reliable testimony of others. As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes to amended Rule 702, the Daubert factor relating to “whether the expert’s technique or theory can be tested” means “whether the expert’s theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability.” Dr. Tattar’s report makes clear the evidence he is relying on to form his conclusions. It is clearly possible to test those conclusions objectively.
The defendants characterize Dr. Tattar’s opinions as “unsubstantiated and speculative.” Def. Mem. at 4. However, Dr. Tattar’s opinions are substantiated [**13] by photographs which document both the diameter of the tree and its height. Given Dr. Tattar’s background in tree pathology, such information is sufficient to make an inference as to the relative frailty of the tree.
Similarly, the report by defendants’ tree expert of the presence of the electrical insulator, and the fact that the insulator had woody stem tissue grown over it, is a sufficient empirical basis on which to form conclusions about the presence of microbial infections in the tree, and the effect that such infections have on the strength of the tree.
The defendants further argue that peer review of Dr. Tattar’s conclusions is impossible because he “performed no testing and employed no plant pathology methodologies.” Def. Mem. at 6. The defendants also argue that Dr. Tattar must be able to describe which species infected the tree. By destroying the tree, the defendants have made it impossible for Dr. Tattar to [*145] identify the species that may have infected the tree. However, Dr. Tattar has adequately explained that the stressed condition of the tree, as shown by its abnormally small diameter, made it susceptible to infection. Mosley Decl. Exh. J, Tattar Dep. at 210-11. Dr. [**14] Tattar has also examined photographs of the tree which show objective indicia of decay, such as the brash break over the surface of the interior of the tree, and discoloration in the tree’s flesh. It is possible, given Dr. Tattar’s expertise, to make conclusions based on such empirical data, just as it would be possible for a peer to review and to criticize Dr. Tattar’s report.
Finally, the defendants’ argument that there are no known or potential rates of error is misplaced. Dr. Tattar has formed reasonable inferences based on photographic evidence and other evidence from witnesses. Such inferences are not governed by statistical methods which would generate numerical rates of error. They are fallible conclusions, however, as are the conclusions of any expert, and may be challenged by competing experts retained by defendants.
As the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein observed, “too nitpicking an approach to find reasons to exclude expert testimony from distinguished scientists will tend to drive the best of them out of the courtroom. The greatest danger to the courts is not the incompetent who will testify for pay, but our failure to encourage sound scientists to assist the law.” Falise v. American Tobacco, 258 F. Supp. 2d 63, 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). [**15] Accordingly, the report and testimony of Dr. Tattar is admissible.
The Plaintiffs’ Camp and Recreational Safety Expert May Testify With Respect to American Camping Association Standards
The plaintiffs retained David H. Fried, a camp and recreational safety expert, to opine on the defendants’ compliance with the standards and guidelines developed by the ACA. Fried is the president of DEP Accident Analysis, Inc., which provides services as sports, recreation and educational safety consultants. He has published articles on sports and recreational injuries and on playground safety, and has given public presentations on these and related topics.
The defendants argue that Fried’s opinions would not assist the trier of fact with understanding scientific, technical or specialized knowledge, and that opinions based on generalized knowledge are unreliable. The defendants also argue that if Fried’s opinions are deemed to be specialized knowledge, they should be subject to the strict gatekeeping function required by Daubert.
Finally, the defendants argue that Fried relies on the fact of plaintiff’s injury to “bootstrap” his opinion that the defendants failed to exercise due [**16] care, meaning that the sole basis for concluding that defendants were negligent is that Jory Lesser was injured.
The plaintiffs reply that because the defendants have repeatedly claimed that they have complied with ACA standards and that ACA camps are safer, it is important for plaintiffs to be able to rebut this claim through a qualified camp and recreational safety consultant. The plaintiffs also seek to admit Fried’s testimony on the issue of whether defendants provided adequate supervision to the plaintiff Jory Lesser, and on defendants’ failure to monitor weather forecasts.
Fried has sufficient expertise on ACA procedures to testify as to the extent of Camp Wildwood’s compliance with those standards. Fried has been a camp director or consultant for over forty years. See Mosley Decl. Exh. D, Fried curriculum vitae. Further, he has prepared safety plans for camps and has been responsible [*146] for preparing applications for ACA certification.
Fried may not testify, however, as to his conclusions on the issue of whether the defendants provided adequate supervision to the plaintiff. The adequacy of the supervision of the plaintiff on July 4, 2000 is an issue that extends beyond compliance [**17] with ACA standards. It may be the case, as defendants have suggested, that “even had the camp cured all of its allegedly negligent procedures prior to the fireworks event,” see Def. Reply Mem. at 16, the plaintiff would still have been injured by the falling tree. Fried’s conclusions apart from the issue of compliance with ACA standards therefore intrude into an area in which the trier of fact is adequately able to form an opinion. The Supreme Court has held that, conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another. Trained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data. But nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1997). This does not mean, as the defendants have suggested, that “Fried has not and cannot tie the underlying facts to his opinions regarding the alleged inadequacy of the camp’s safety [**18] procedures,” but only that it is not necessary to draw on Fried’s expertise to assist the trier of fact in deciding whether such a connection is warranted.
The same rationale applies to Fried’s conclusion that defendants failed in their obligation to make certain that the children were not assembled outside in bad weather. Expert testimony is not required to ascertain whether defendants should have checked weather forecasts or whether defendants did in fact check.
These issues are not within the domain of “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” within the meaning of Rule 702.
Summary Judgment Motion
Standard of Review
Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court shall grant a motion for summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits . . show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986) ; Silver v. City Univ., 947 F.2d 1021, 1022 (2d Cir. 1991). [**19] The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts establish her right to judgment as a matter of law.” Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2d Cir. 1995). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986); Gibbs-Alfano v. Burton, 281 F.3d 12, 18 (2d Cir. 2002).
Both parties are in agreement that New York law applies to the plaintiffs’ negligence claims.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied As to the Negligent Supervision Claim
Under New York law, entities to whom custody of children is entrusted, [*147] such as schools, camps or similar institutions, have a duty to exercise the same degree of care as would a reasonably prudent parent under similar circumstances. See Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 637 N.E.2d 263, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372 (1994); Gustin v. Ass [**20] ‘n of Camps Farthest Out, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 1001, 1002, 700 N.Y.S.2d 327 (4^th Dept. 1999). Persons having children entrusted to their care are “charged with the highest degree of care.” Willis v. YMCA, 28 N.Y.2d 375, 379, 270 N.E.2d 717, 321 N.Y.S.2d 895 (1971) (quoting Oldham v. Hoover, 140 So. 2d 417, 421 (La. Ct. App. 1962). The care of children “requires ‘more vigilance’ than would be required for adults.” Id. (quoting 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 12, subd. b, p. 588).
It is true, however, that camps, like schools, “are not insurers of safety . . . for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students.” Mirand, 84 N.Y.2d at 49. Organizers of recreational events “owe a duty to exercise only reasonable care to protect participants ‘from injuries arising out of unassumed, concealed or unreasonably increased risks.” Fintzi v. New Jersey YMHA-YWHA Camps, 97 N.Y.2d 669, 670, 765 N.E.2d 288, 739 N.Y.S.2d 85 (2001); see also Gustin ex rel. Gustin v. Association of Camps Farthest Out, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 1001, 1003, 700 N.Y.S.2d 327 (1999) (“In the setting [of a summer camp], constant supervision is neither feasible [**21] nor desirable because one of the benefits of such an institution is to inculcate self-reliance in the campers which an overly protective supervision would destroy”).
The defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie claim of negligence because the supervisory and precautionary procedures established by Camp Wildwood were reasonable and were followed during the storm which arose on July 4, 2000. When the storm hit, camp personnel instructed campers to go to their bunks. Jory Lesser heard these instructions and according to defendants, knew where the bunks were, heeded the instruction and headed toward the bunk. Defendants also note that the plaintiffs’ recreational safety expert “has acknowledged that the bunks were the closest shelter available and [were located] a safe distance from the waterfront for the purposes of evacuating the campers.” Def. Summ. J. Mem. at 7.
The plaintiffs counter that defendants had an inadequate safety plan and that there was a “total lack of camper supervision” on the evening in question. Pl. Summ. J. Opp. Mem. at 27. Plaintiffs further argue that defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff by (1) failing to conduct [**22] evacuation procedures and drills; (2) failing safely to accommodate and plan for an evacuation of all the campers including visiting campers; (3) failing to properly train and supervise the counselors in terms of an evacuation plan; and (4) failing to develop a plan to adequately monitor the weather so as to be apprised of an approaching storm.
Plaintiffs cite the testimony of defendant Mark Meyer to the effect that there was no evacuation plan in effect that day to evacuate people on the waterfront in the event of bad weather. Id. at 28 (citing Mosley Decl. Exh. F at 160 (M. Meyer Dep.)). Further, plaintiffs’ expert has noted “a failure to have or practice a specific evacuation plan for a storm at the fireworks event, a failure to assign . . . counselors to be responsible for particular campers in the event of an emergency, and a failure to organize the campers in order that they would remain together under direct supervision of counselors assigned to their safety.” Id. (citing Mosley Decl. Exh. D (Fried Report); Exh. K (Fried Dep.)). [*148] According to evidence presented by the plaintiffs, there was also no rehearsal of any safety plan or communication of the plan to counselors, [**23] despite the requirement of training and/or rehearsal in the ACA Standards Manual. See Mosley Decl. Exh. N at OM-14 (ACA Accreditation Standards) (“Training for or rehearsal by campers may be appropriate in some situations such as fire or storm drills.”).
Plaintiffs also argue that even if the procedures in place were adequate, they were not followed on the evening in question. The camp’s procedures call for campers to be “escorted” from the waterfront in the event of a storm. Def. Rule 56.1 Statement, P 10. The defendants have produced no evidence that Jory Lesser was escorted from the waterfront. Immediately prior to being injured, Jory Lesser testified that he saw “one other camper, but no counselors or no adult supervisors” outside the bunks. Mosley Decl. Exh. G at 71-72.
Defendants argue that any alleged breach of supervisory duties was in any case not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. They argue that Jory Lesser was struck by a tree downed by strong winds even though he was evacuating the waterfront in the manner instructed. They cite plaintiffs’ expert, who defendants claim has conceded that “any number of trees could have fallen on any number of individuals” [**24] even if the evacuation procedures proposed by the expert were followed. Def. Summ. J. Mem. at 9 (quoting Straus Decl. Exh. J. at 204 (Fried Dep.)).
Plaintiffs dispute the defendants’ claim that Jory Lesser was following the camp’s evacuation procedures and argue conversely that “he was, in fact, confused as to where to go for shelter and lost in the chaos of the poor evacuation.” Pl. Summ. J. Mem. at 41. Lesser testified that after the order was shouted to get to the bunks, “it was like 800 chickens running around with their heads cut off.” Mosley Decl. Exh. G at 47.
The defendants have also misrepresented the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, David Fried. After stating that “any number of trees could have fallen on any number of individuals,” he also asserts that “the chance of Lesser being hit by a tree would be infinitesimal in my opinion if he had been able to follow his counselor . . .” Straus Decl. Exh. J at 204. Fried makes several other similar statements throughout his deposition. See, e.g., Mosley Decl. Exh. K at 198 (“. . . if the counselor . . . had supervised Lesser, the chances of Lesser being hit by a tree would probably be zero because his counselor wasn’t [**25] hit by a tree.”).
While it is possible to infer that Lesser would have been struck by the tree no matter what procedures the counselors followed, it is also possible to infer that the counselors failure to escort him was the proximate cause of his injuries. “Proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury where varying inferences are possible.” Mirand, 84 N.Y.2d at 51; see also Greaves v. Bronx YMCA, 87 A.D.2d 394, 399, 452 N.Y.S.2d 27 (2d Dep’t. 1982).
Based on the evidence presented, and making all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, there is a genuine issue of material fact on the issues of whether defendants provided adequate supervision and whether any inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate. In negligent supervision cases, the questions whether the actions of the defendants “are adequate and reasonable and, if they are not, whether the negligence is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, are almost always questions of fact.” Garcia v. City of New York, 222 A.D.2d 192, 194, 646 N.Y.S.2d 508 (1^st [*149] Dep’t. 1996) (emphasis added). [**26] The present case is no exception.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied As to the Premises Liability Claim
Under New York law, a premises or landowner “owes a duty to persons coming upon his or her land ‘to keep it in reasonably safe condition considering all the circumstances, including the purpose of the person’s presence on the land and the likelihood of injury.’” Gustin, 267 A.D.2d at 1002 (quoting Duclos v. County of Monroe, 258 A.D.2d 925, 926, 685 N.Y.S.2d 549 (4^th Dept. 1999)). To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must “demonstrate either that the defendants created the dangerous or defective condition which caused the accident, or that they had actual or constructive notice of the condition.” Dima v. Breslin Realty, Inc., 240 A.D.2d 359, 360, 658 N.Y.S.2d 115 (2d Dep’t. 1997) (citing Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774 (1986)).
In cases involving fallen trees or branches, a landowner will only be held liable if he or she knew or should have known about a defective condition of the tree. Ivancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, 351, 488 N.E.2d 72, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1985); [**27] Harris v. Village of East Hills, 41 N.Y.2d 446, 450, 362 N.E.2d 243, 393 N.Y.S.2d 691 (1977); Asnip v. State of New York, 300 A.D.2d 328, 751 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2d Dep’t 2002). Constructive notice will be imputed if “the record establishes that reasonable inspection would have revealed the dangerous condition of the tree,” Harris, 41 N.Y.2d at 449, or where the defendant has no program in place to inspect trees, see Hilliard v. Town of Greenburgh, 301 A.D.2d 572, 573, 754 N.Y.S.2d 29 (2d Dep’t 2002). The meaning of “reasonable inspection” has been considered recently by the New York Court of Claims:
What level of inspection is “reasonable” varies depending on the circumstances, with a higher level of attention being given to trees that are so located that falling branches are likely to come into contact with members of the public, as compared to the attention to be accorded trees that are located some distance away from the traveled area. Relevant factors to be considered are whether signs of decay or other problems that have been observed by neighbors and other passers-by; whether the tree itself had to have branches [**28] removed or received other attention in the past; whether there is knowledge or evidence of climatic conditions or changes to the contour of the adjoining land that might impact the health of the tree; whether other similar trees have been found to be diseased and are removed; and the presence or absence of bark and foliage. … Weather conditions that are so extreme as to constitute an act of God may provide a defense, but reasonable care “requires precaution as well against the extraordinary as against the ordinary” and it is only the truly unforeseeable that can serve as a separate, intervening cause.
Gugliotta v. State of New York, Claim No. 96538, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 667, at *17-*19 (Ct. Claims November 3, 1999) (quoting Edgett v. State of New York, 7 A.D.2d 570, 571, 184 N.Y.S.2d 952 (3d Dep’t. 1959)) (citations omitted).
Summary judgment should be granted only when there is no credible evidence that the dangerous condition of the tree could have been revealed prior to the accident. See Asnip, 300 A.D.2d at 329 (summary judgment granted where tree trunk showed no evidence of “ [*150] any visible, outward sign [**29] of decay “); Leach v. Town of Yorktown, 251 A.D.2d 630, 631, 676 N.Y.S.2d 209 (2d Dep’t. 2000) (same).
The defendants argue that their inspection procedures are reasonable. However, “the issue is not whether the responsible party actually had an inspection program in place but, rather whether reasonable inspection—if it had taken place—would have revealed the defect.” Gugliotta, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 667 at *17.
Defendants also argue that the evidence of the subject tree’s weakened state presented by the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Tattar, is contradicted by clear evidence and is therefore insufficient to defeat summary judgment. They argue that the plaintiffs have not put forward any evidence “that the purported ‘wood rot fungi’ observed by Dr. Tattar in the interior tissue of the tree was visible on the outward, exterior surface of the tree.” Def. Summ. J. Mem. at 13.
Plaintiffs reply that the defendants had actual knowledge that the tree was stressed from the fact that it was abnormally thin for its height. They also point to the photographic evidence of discoloration in the tree in the area where the tree failed. Dr. Tattar testified that the [**30] photographs disclose what “appears to be . . . an infection on one side of the tree that caused discoloration and altering of the condition of the tissue at the fracture point…” Mosley Decl. Exh. J at 223.
The defendants also argue that even if a reasonable inspection would have revealed that the tree was in a dangerous condition, the condition of the tree is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs have only provided speculative evidence that the conditions of the tree caused it to fall on the plaintiff. Further, the storm conditions which arose at the time of the incident were an “act of God.”
The plaintiffs reply that Dr. Tattar’s report concluded that “the tree likely failed in a combination of microbial activity and/or because it was abnormally thin and broke because of that condition.” Mosley Decl. Exh. J at 204. They also argue that the “act of God” defense fails both because the weather conditions could have been anticipated and because the defects in the tree contributed to the tree’s failure.
While it is true that the plaintiffs’ expert has acknowledged that even non-defective trees may fail in a sufficiently severe [**31] windstorm, it is not the case that plaintiffs’ have put forward no evidence suggesting that the tree’s defective condition is the proximate cause of Jory Lesser’s injuries. The defendants have noted that Dr. Tattar has failed to specify the wind speeds at which defective and non-defective trees would fail, and the actual wind speeds of the storm that hit the camp. Such detailed information is not necessary to defeat summary judgment. It is sufficient at the present stage that plaintiffs have presented evidence that the tree evidenced a “brash break” at the point where it failed. A brash break “does not have splinters. It breaks almost in a flat line and just simply breaks . . . whereas a splinter breaks with lots of vertical splinters. Pieces of wood sticking up.” Mosley Decl. Exh. J at 241. In a normal, healthy tree, the break point would be splintered. The evidence that the tree failed at the point where it was apparently defective is sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. It is not necessary at this stage in the litigation to rule out decisively the possibility that even a non-defective tree would have [**32] failed.
The defendants have not put forward sufficient evidence to establish their “act of God” defense as a matter of law. An injury is caused by an “act of God” when, [*151] it happens by direct, immediate and exclusive operation of the forces of nature, uncontrolled or uninfluenced by the powers of man and without human intervention, and is of such a character that it could not have been prevented or escaped by any amount of foresight or prudence, or by any reasonable amount of care or diligence. Pickersgill v. City of New York, 168 Misc.2d 768, 769, 642 N.Y.S.2d 469 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1996) (quoting Resnick Co. v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha, 39 Misc.2d 513, 514, 241 N.Y.S.2d 134 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1963)). To invoke this defense, the weather conditions must be “so extraordinarily harsh” and “unusual” as to not be reasonably anticipated by the defendant. Id. at 769-770; see also Prashant Enterprises, Inc. v. State of New York, 206 A.D.2d 729, 730, 614 N.Y.S.2d 653 (3d Dep’t 1994). Further, New York courts will deny such a defense if negligence on the defendants part is found. See Edgett, 7 A.D.2d at 571 [**33] (“If negligence is proved against the State . . . the unprecedented storm . . . was no absolute defense.”).
Defendants claim, based on their retained meteorological expert, that the camp was struck by an extremely severe, very rare and unpredictable weather phenomenon known as a “downburst” that produced winds in excess of 70 mile per hour. According to defendants’ expert, winds of that speed strike the geographical area in which the camp is located approximately once every hundred years. The plaintiffs contest the strength of the storm. More importantly, the plaintiffs have also submitted evidence that the National Weather Service had predicted thunderstorms for the evening of July 4, 2000. Even if the storm which actually occurred was as rare as the defendants claim, the injuries which plaintiffs argue were caused by the defective tree could have been “prevented or escaped” by some “amount of foresight or prudence,” Pickersgill, 168 Misc.2d at 769, namely, by keeping campers away from trees that evening.
The evidence put forward by the plaintiffs of the tree’s abnormal thinness and the discoloration of the tree shown in the photographs and interpreted by the plaintiffs’ [**34] expert is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the dangerous condition of the subject tree. The plaintiffs have also raised a question of fact as to whether the defective tree was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, summary judgment is inappropriate on this issue.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Terry Tattar is denied, the motion to preclude the testimony of David Fried is granted in part and denied in part, and the motion for partial summary judgment is denied.
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
September 16, 2003
ROBERT W. SWEET
U.S.D.J.

Wyoming is beefing up its Recreational Safety Act so minors cannot sue

Major step forward for Wyoming. Contact your Wyoming legislators and support this bill. 

There is a bill pending in the state of Wyoming that will add minors to the protection afforded recreational programs and businesses. Additionally, the act will include outdoor education programs as specifically protected under the act.

Here is the proposed act. Changes are red.

WYOMING

SENATE FILE NO. SF0079

Recreation Safety Act-waiver on behalf of minors.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Case and Representative(s) Brown and Gingery

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to the Recreation Safety Act; clarifying 2 assumption of risk relating to that act; providing that a 3 parent may waive a minor’s negligence claim against a 4 provider of a sport or recreational opportunity; and 5 providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1. W.S. 1-1-122(a)(iii), by creating new 10 paragraphs (vi) and (vii) and by renumbering (vi) as (viii) 11 and 1-1-123 by creating new subsections (d) and (e) are amended to read:
 
1-1-122. Definitions.

(a) As used in this act:

(iii) “Sport or recreational opportunity” means commonly understood sporting activities including baseball, softball, football, soccer, basketball, swimming, hockey, dude ranching, nordic or alpine skiing, mountain climbing, outdoor education programs, river floating, hunting, fishing, backcountry trips, horseback riding and any other equine activity, snowmobiling and similar recreational opportunities and includes the use of private lands for vehicle parking and land access related to the sport or recreational opportunity;

(vi) “Minor” means an unemancipated individual who has not yet reached the eighteenth anniversary of his birth; 

(vii) “Parent” means the legal guardian of a minor, his natural parent or if the minor has been legally adopted, the adoptive parent; 

(vi)(viii) “This act” means W.S. 1-1-121 through 22 1-1-123.

1-1-123. Assumption of risk.

(d) The assumption of risk provisions in subsections (a) through (c) of this section apply irrespective of the age of the person assuming the risk. 

(e) A parent may, on behalf of the parent’s minor child, release or waive the minor’s prospective claim for negligence against the provider of a sport or recreational opportunity in which the minor participates. The release or waiver shall be in writing and shall be signed by the minor’s parent and need not be signed by the minor. A minor may not release or waive the minor’s prospective claim for negligence against the provider of a sport or recreational opportunity without the accompanying signature of a parent. A parent may not release or waive a minor’s prospective claim against the provider of a sport or recreational opportunity for willful, wanton or reckless acts. 

 Section 2. This act is effective immediately upon 20 completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law 21 as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming 22 Constitution. 

I strongly urge you to get on board, contact your Wyoming legislator and support this bill! 

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com
 

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

The Outdoor Recreation and Manufacturing Industry is now different.

2011 and the future will be different. 

Skip Yowell Retired January 1, 2011. 

See JanSport Co-founder Skip Yowell Announces Retirement
 

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Thieves Targeting Colorado Fly Shops

A well-orchestrated group of of thieves is targeting Colorado fly
shops.  So far they have made off with several thousand dollars in
merchandise.  The group is stealing high end product.  Among the shops
hit thus far: Laughing Grizzly, Angler’s All, Charlie’s Fly Box,
Trout’s Fly Shop, Orvis Cherry Creek, and Rocky Mountain Anglers.
Thefts occurred February 2-3.

Suspects are two couples, Middle Eastern or Latin in appearance, well
groomed and dressed fashionably.  Once couple distracts the store
staff while the other steals merchandise. Suspects have called ahead and
verified that you are indeed a specialty fly shop. Cell phone area codes that
have been used are (402) and (815). A Maroon passenger van with an
Illinois license plate # K714 248 was used by the suspects.

Below is the only photo of the suspects that is available at this time.
BE ON ALERT!  Protect your business, and if you get a chance to pinch
these crooks by calling the police, do it!

To stay updated on this go to: Angling Trade

Looking for Guides for Sea Kayaking jobs in Alaska this summer.

I’m sending out a call that we’re looking for guides for our Alaska 2011 season.  The company is InnerSea Discoveries.  Two boats, carrying 49 or 68 guests, will be spending week-long trips in wilderness goofing off in kayaks and hiking during the day.  Each day is a new location.  All hikes are bear country, bushwhacking required, strong tidal currents, many experienced guests, many inexperienced guests.  Groups no bigger than 12 total.  This is the first season these boats are running & it’s gonna require a lot of thinking outside the box.  If you have a Coast Guard license it’s really helpful.

Guides will lead day (and one overnight per week) sea kayak trips, day-long (and shorter) hiking trips in the Tongass National Forest, as well as help out aboard with anything that needs done.  You guys know the drill: teamwork.  We’ll be running May-September.  Being in Seattle for training & familiarization in April is strongly encouraged.

This is an incredible part of the world, and I’m confident it’s gonna be a really good thing.  I’ve been working to develop the itinerary & activities to where it’s a trip that I want to take.  The only reason I’m involved is to give it my level best to make this the new precedent for how people healthily experience the Tongass via boats.  We’ve got a lot going for us.

If you’d like to learn more, please give me a call.  I’d love to share with you, or anyone that you think would be interested.

Thanks much,
  Kevin
+001.360.694.6600
skype: kevinHmartin

Podium Sports Frisco Winter Sale!!!!

CALL FOR PAPERS: SCHOLE: A JOURNAL OF LEISURE STUDIES AND RECREATION EDUCATION

LEARNING ACTIVITY SECTION
 
Volume 26, 2011
 
DUE DATE: February 18, 2011
 
Schole: The Journal of Recreation and Leisure Education seeks short manuscripts on conceptually/theoretically based learning activities. Appropriate learning activities include those that facilitate students’ learning and involvement in the application of concepts and development of their own expertise.
Each learning activity submission will undergo peer review to assess the manuscript based on three aspects: connections between the conceptual foundation and the learning activity, the feasibility and clarity of the activity implementation, and the ability of the activity to make complex issues relevant to the current generation of students. The goal is to spark innovative teaching practices in the classroom by sharing among professional peers.

Each manuscript should provide (a) a brief introduction to the content (i.e., theory, concepts, or legal issues), (b) the theoretical/practical foundation that connects the content to the delivery design, (c) a complete description of the learning activity, (d) the desired outcomes for learners, and (d) recommendations for its use by others (specific courses, target population, adaptations). Please note that manuscripts should be between 4-6 pages in length.

Guidelines for Contributors to the Learning Activity session:

1. Manuscripts will be accepted for review by the Editors with the understanding that they have not already been published, and that if accepted for publication in Schole, that the manuscripts will not be published elsewhere without permission of the Co-Editors.
2. All manuscripts should be in American English. Papers should be double-spaced (including abstract and references) and pages numbered consecutively with 1″ margins.
3. The author’s name should appear only on the title page. Begin the title page with the title of the article, the author’s name, address, telephone number and email address. In the case of co-authors, respective addresses should be clearly indicated as well as which author is to receive correspondence.
4. The essential content of each paper should be briefly recapitulated in a single paragraph abstract (150 words) following the title page. The abstract page should also contain 3-6 keywords for indexing.
5. All photographs, charts, and diagrams should be referred to as “Figures” and numbered consecutively as they appear in the text. Figures and tables should not be submitted in color, but either as black and white or grayscale. Tables should also be numbered consecutively and should have informative titles. Figures and tables may be submitted as separate documents; however, their position in the manuscript should be indicated in the text.

6. Include only references to books, articles, and bulletins actually cited in the text. All references should follow the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).
7. Submit one electronic copy of the manuscript saved in M.S. Word or rich text format to jhpommier@eiu.edu. Please name the file Schole_LA_lastname.firstinitial_11

Articles submitted for the 2011 Volume must be received by February 18, 2011.
Specific questions should be addressed to:

John Henry Pommier, Co-Editor, Schole
Department of Recreation Administration
Eastern Illinois University
600 Lincoln Avenue
Charleston, IL 61920
Phone: (217) 581-6597
Fax: (217) 581-7804
Email: jhpommier@eiu.edu

Why working in the outdoors in different from a legal perspective?

A guide for an outdoor company is in a unique perspective with his or her customers. This relationship can be used to resolve conflict, emotion and injured guests. 

When I work at a Grand Canyon river trip for OARS or any other company, I notice myself changing. By day three I have evolved from my lawyer self into my boatman self. I really like the boatman in me.

Whatever troubles I brought with me seems to fade by day three. Even more fun is to watch the guests on a trip also settle into their new self. They move from talking about work to talking about the canyon. Their goals for their families merge into their accomplishments, said with pride.

I sometimes refer to it as shedding my skin. I leave the stress behind. Sometimes I start to feel it come back the next to the last day of a trip, but even there I think it is more of getting ready to go back to the other world rather than stresses coming back. I look forward to getting out of the canyon and facing the challenges I left behind when I shoved off sixteen days earlier.

I find that rowing gear boats by myself is great. I do not feel the need to interact, to reach out and get feedback like I do when I’m working. Being alone is good. Being with people is good also, there is just no difference to me, and they both make me happy. However, here, alone is a very powerful word that instills concerns in mothers everywhere.

An article in the New York Times titled Outdoors and Out of Reach, Studying the Brain supports this idea. One of the scientists in the article describes what occurs as “third day symptom.”

The article was written after a group of scientists from different disciplines took a river trip together. As they floated, rafted and hiked the river canyon, they all noticed changes in themselves. By day three the problems, they brought to the put in had were no longer pressing. The issues or problems were still there. The issues were just not that important any more.

The group also changed as a group. The group of scientists had “become more reflective, quieter, more focused on the surroundings.”One of the scientists even skipped coffee one morning, a ritual for him at home.

Now put yourself in this situation. Individually, and as a group you have changed. As a group you as a guide and your guests are closer. You are sharing knowledge, goals and ideas.

I’ve had customers tell me their life stories. They have a look on their face that says that all of the problems, accomplishments and failures in the past have little value in the canyon, so telling me, or anyone else there has no consequence.

The relationship between the people is difficult to describe. It involves a lot of trust, teamwork, interaction and enjoyment of the surroundings and each other. Whatever it is, it creates a different type of relationship between the people on the trip.

Now evacuate someone out of the trip for an injury. What happens?

· To the injured guest?
· To the injured guests’ family on the trip?
· To the guides?
· To the rest of the guests on the trip?

Does this interruption, the roar of the helicopter and the whirling of its blades break the relationships or just stun them?

I think they just break them. I’ve had this happen and I believe that the group comes back together. Not because they have to, but because they need to. The group wants that feeling back and wants to feel good and wants to feel safe. Those emotions are provided by the guides and the group.

Like CISD session (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing or Critical Incident Stress Management) the group wants to know and wants to get rid of the emotions the incident creates. The group wants to go back to before the incident emotionally. Your job is to help them.

You can also help when you are out of the canyon or off the mountain. The person who was evacuated was torn from the group and went from happy and relaxed to injured and stressed in a millisecond. Add to that new people, new surrounds and thousands of questions, and you have a bad situation.

The injured person will want to know what happened, want to know what happened to the rest of the group, what happened to the trip. You should tell them.

At the same time, the remaining guests will want to know what happened to the injured person, t person who was part of the group, who was taken away. They have an emotional connection to that person, and that connection was stopped. You should answer their questions.

Who better?

Who can answer their questions? Who can connect them with the friends and new friends they left behind? Who can help them understand the system, the paperwork, and what may come next? Who can put a face on the company you work for?

By doing this but being there, by keeping the group together as much as you can, you will probably avert litigation.

Remember no matter what “It will still be there when you get back.”

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Once harm has been done, even a fool understands it.

Once harm has been done, even a fool understands it. Homer

Source: http://quotes4all.net/quote_1454.html
[Powered by QuotesPlugin v1.0 for Windows Live Writer]

Arizona Raft Adventures has openings for 3 people.

Arizona Raft Adventures is hiring for three positions: two in the office and one in the warehouse.  The office positions will be for (1) a retail and trip sales coordinator, and (2) an administrative assistant and trip sales coordinator.  The warehouse position is for another hand out there.    Resumes for the office positions are due by January 28, sent to me at AzRA.  Resumes for the warehouse position are due by February 15, send to Fred at AzRA.  You can also email your resumes to resumes@azraft.com.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!
Alex
Alexandra Thevenin
General Manager
Arizona Raft Adventures & Grand Canyon Discovery

4050 East Huntington Drive
Flagstaff, AZ 86004
alex@azraft.com; www.azraft.com
800.786.7238

Rocky Mountain Field Institute

Employment Opportunities

Program Director

Rocky Mountain Field Institute is currently accepting applications for a Program Director position. Anticipated start date is March 1, 2011. Interviews will begin in late January. This is an exciting time to join the RMFI team as we are in the midst of growing our stewardship, education, and research programs. Our current program director recently moved into a new role within the organization, leaving an opening for this fun, outdoor-oriented position! See job description link below. 

Rocky Mountain Field Institute

The Rocky Mountain Field Institute is a nonprofit organization based in Colorado Springs, Colorado whose mission is to integrate environmental stewardship, education, and research through the exemplary restoration of key natural areas.

For more information about the position go here!

Executive Director of Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association

Responsibilities will include office management, legislative tracking and analysis, member alert bulletins, communication with the National Park Service at the local, regional and national levels, representation of association members at meetings and policy briefings, dissemination of NPS and other industry information to members, and representation of the association in communications and meetings with other associations.
Desirable skill sets include: Experience managing other trade associations; knowledge of NPS and congressional organizational cultures, the ability to communicate issues and answers succinctly in writing and orally. Concession experience with the National Park Service or another land-managing agency would also carry considerable weight. Computer skills are required.

This is a full-time position. Relocation or frequent travel may be required. Compensation negotiable, depending on degree to which the successful applicant meets the requirements for the position. Written resumes and a writing sample required. Applicants will be considered without regard to race, gender, or ethnicity.

To work in a “full-time” capacity on behalf of the companies with contracts to outfit river trips in Grand Canyon. Full time is defined as 40 hours per week.
Perform day-to-day administrative functions such as:

-Bookkeeping
-Paying bills
-Maintenance of office
-Coordination with NPS re: Online Launch Calendar
-Supervision of GCROA website
-Prepare an annual budget
-Prepare an annual report to the Board of Directors
-Schedule and coordinate annual Board of Directors meeting
-Management of the Colorado River Fund

Have a working knowledge of issues relevant to Grand Canyon river outfitters, the whitewater rafting industry in general, operations at Grand Canyon National Park, concessions law in general and the specific concessions contracts held by GCROA members.

Work cooperatively with other organizations with ties to Grand Canyon such as Grand Canyon River Guides Association, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, and Grand Canyon River Runners Association.
Gain a working knowledge of each member of the organization in order to understand individual company and broader industry needs, preferences, and operating strategies.
Advocacy and representation of the industry in meetings with the National Park Service at the local, regional and national level.

-Includes taking a pro-active approach with regard to issues that the executive director or board of directors anticipates in the future (e.g., contract renewal, next round of the Colorado River Management Plan).
-Includes developing working relationships with key players at the Park so that they recognize this person as the voice of GCROA with regard to Grand Canyon related issues.

Representation of the industry before relevant congressional delegations and in Washington, DC in general.

-Includes legislative tracking and analysis

Advocacy of industry positions, as established by the Board of Directors, with regard to the management of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon including management of Glen Canyon Dam operations.

Administer and coordinate on-going industry commitments and projects such as the Grand Canyon Conservation Fund, Alternative Motorboat project, Native Voices on the Colorado, the Grand Canyon River Heritage Museum and other projects as they arise in the future.

Coordinate industry reporting requirements where appropriate (e.g., consolidating the list of industry guests to comply with the “one trip per year” rule).

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #Grand Canyon, #outfitter, # GCROA, #Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association, #whitewater, #rafting,
Technorati Tags: Executive,Director,Grand,Canyon,River,Outfitters,Association,Advertisement,Responsibilities,office,management,analysis,member,bulletins,communication,National,Park,Service,representation,meetings,policy,briefings,dissemination,industry,information,Desirable,skill,Experience,knowledge,Concession,agency,Computer,skills,Relocation,Compensation,degree,applicant,requirements,Written,Applicants,gender,Full,hours,Perform,Maintenance,Coordination,Online,Launch,Calendar,Supervision,GCROA,Prepare,Board,Directors,Schedule,Colorado,Fund,whitewater,Work,Guides,Private,Boaters,Runners,Gain,preferences,strategies,Advocacy,Includes,renewal,Plan,relationships,players,person,delegations,Washington,Glen,Administer,commitments,Conservation,Alternative,Motorboat,Native,Voices,Heritage,Museum,Coordinate,guests,Committee,deadline,submissions,February,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence,congressional
Windows Live Tags: Executive,Director,Grand,Canyon,River,Outfitters,Association,Advertisement,Responsibilities,office,management,analysis,member,bulletins,communication,National,Park,Service,representation,meetings,policy,briefings,dissemination,industry,information,Desirable,skill,Experience,knowledge,Concession,agency,Computer,skills,Relocation,Compensation,degree,applicant,requirements,Written,Applicants,gender,Full,hours,Perform,Maintenance,Coordination,Online,Launch,Calendar,Supervision,GCROA,Prepare,Board,Directors,Schedule,Colorado,Fund,whitewater,Work,Guides,Private,Boaters,Runners,Gain,preferences,strategies,Advocacy,Includes,renewal,Plan,relationships,players,person,delegations,Washington,Glen,Administer,commitments,Conservation,Alternative,Motorboat,Native,Voices,Heritage,Museum,Coordinate,guests,Committee,deadline,submissions,February,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence,congressional
WordPress Tags: Executive,Director,Grand,Canyon,River,Outfitters,Association,Advertisement,Responsibilities,office,management,analysis,member,bulletins,communication,National,Park,Service,representation,meetings,policy,briefings,dissemination,industry,information,Desirable,skill,Experience,knowledge,Concession,agency,Computer,skills,Relocation,Compensation,degree,applicant,requirements,Written,Applicants,gender,Full,hours,Perform,Maintenance,Coordination,Online,Launch,Calendar,Supervision,GCROA,Prepare,Board,Directors,Schedule,Colorado,Fund,whitewater,Work,Guides,Private,Boaters,Runners,Gain,preferences,strategies,Advocacy,Includes,renewal,Plan,relationships,players,person,delegations,Washington,Glen,Administer,commitments,Conservation,Alternative,Motorboat,Native,Voices,Heritage,Museum,Coordinate,guests,Committee,deadline,submissions,February,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence,congressional
Blogger Labels: Executive,Director,Grand,Canyon,River,Outfitters,Association,Advertisement,Responsibilities,office,management,analysis,member,bulletins,communication,National,Park,Service,representation,meetings,policy,briefings,dissemination,industry,information,Desirable,skill,Experience,knowledge,Concession,agency,Computer,skills,Relocation,Compensation,degree,applicant,requirements,Written,Applicants,gender,Full,hours,Perform,Maintenance,Coordination,Online,Launch,Calendar,Supervision,GCROA,Prepare,Board,Directors,Schedule,Colorado,Fund,whitewater,Work,Guides,Private,Boaters,Runners,Gain,preferences,strategies,Advocacy,Includes,renewal,Plan,relationships,players,person,delegations,Washington,Glen,Administer,commitments,Conservation,Alternative,Motorboat,Native,Voices,Heritage,Museum,Coordinate,guests,Committee,deadline,submissions,February,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,Human,youth,areas,negligence,congressional

A question I need to ask more often, one most people need to ask before opening their mouth.

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. Albert Einstein

Source: http://quotes4all.net/quote_952.html
[Powered by QuotesPlugin v1.0 for Windows Live Writer]

New Editor-in-Chief Selected for JOREL

Bowling Green, Ky. The Western Kentucky University Research Foundation, the Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education, and the Wilderness Education Association are pleased to announce that Dr. Andrew J. Bobilya of Montreat College will serve a one-year term as the new Editor-in-Chief for Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership. Dr. Bobilya is the second Editor-in-Chief for the journal; Dr. Aram Attarian of North Carolina State University who served from 2008-2010 preceded him.

Dr. Bobilya currently serves as Co-Chair of the Outdoor Education Department at Montreat College. He holds a B.S. in Outdoor Education from Montreat College, a M.S. in Experiential Education from Minnesota State University at Mankato and a Ph.D. in Education with an emphasis in Outdoor Education from the University of Minnesota. His research interests include program design, unaccompanied wilderness course component outcomes, long-term benefits of adventure program participation, and first-year college student programs. He has presented and authored papers in various publications including the JOREL. At Montreat College, he teaches courses ranging from Administration and Management of Outdoor Education to Whitewater Kayaking and Expedition Management. He also coordinates the college’s Certificate in Wilderness Leadership: Immersion Semester which is an integrated semester where students live together and utilize experiences in and outside of the classroom to develop their leadership and teaching skills. He’s experienced as an instructor, trainer, and program coordinator for various wilderness and adventure programs. He lives in Black Mountain, North Carolina with his wife Kirsten and daughters, Lilyanne and Anika, and enjoys spending time outside exploring as a family.

Referring to the role of JOREL, Dr. Bobilya stated, “I believe the JOREL serves a niche in our disciplines by providing an outlet where authors can submit papers in the broad areas of outdoor recreation, outdoor education, and outdoor leadership; and readers can find a blend of data-driven and conceptual papers. In addition, papers written by practitioners are encouraged for publication – making the JOREL a diverse publication.”

Dr. Bobilya also stated, “I am particularly thankful for the leadership of the Western Kentucky Research Foundation, the Association for Outdoor Recreation and Education and the Wilderness Education Association for partnering to make this journal possible and for the editorial leadership of Dr. Aram Attarian, outgoing Editor-in-Chief. The JOREL is particularly well positioned to help further the body of knowledge in these disciplines through timely manuscript review procedures and online dissemination. I am pleased to be able to serve the JOREL as its Editor-in-Chief and encourage you to consider submitting a manuscript, serving as a reviewer and sharing the journal with those who might benefit from a subscription.”
The Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership Advisory Group looks forward to working with Dr. Bobilya and wishes to thank Dr. Aram Attarian for his contributions as the journal’s Editor-in-Chief from 2008-2010.

About the Journal 

The Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership publishes quality manuscripts to disseminate the latest knowledge related to outdoor recreation, education, and leadership to help develop theory and practice. The journal seeks quantitative and/or qualitative research findings; conceptual or theoretical discussions; or program practices. Relevant topic areas (centered on outdoor recreation, outdoor education, or outdoor leadership) for the journal include, but are not limited to: outdoor recreation, adventure recreation, outdoor education, outdoor leadership, pedagogy, administration, programming, risk management, wilderness medicine, certification, participant behavior, trends, diversity, training, and outcomes.
The journal advisory group (representing AORE, WEA, and WKURF) includes: Tom Stuessy, Ph.D., Green Mountain College; Raymond Poff, Ph.D., Western Kentucky University; Eric Frauman, Ph.D., Appalachian State University; Connie Foster, MLS, Western Kentucky University; Mary Williams, B.S., Wilderness Education Association; Rachel Collins, M.S., University of Utah.

Support for The Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership

The journal, hosted at WKU, uses resources available through TopSCHOLAR® http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ a University-wide, centralized digital repository dedicated to scholarly research, creative activity and other full-text learning resources that merit enduring and archival value and permanent access. TopSCHOLAR® uses the Digital Commons platform from Berkeley Electronic Press http://www.bepress.com;  

The Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education (AORE) http://www.aore.org/ provides opportunities for professionals and students in the field of outdoor recreation and education to exchange information, promote the preservation and conservation of the natural environment, and address issues common to college, university, community, military, and other not-for-profit outdoor recreation and education programs.

The Wilderness Education Association (WEA) http://www.weainfo.org/ promotes the professionalism of outdoor leadership through establishment of national standards, curriculum design, implementation, advocacy, and research driven initiatives.

The Western Kentucky University Research Foundation (WKURF) is organized to support Western Kentucky University efforts to promote the development, implementation, and coordination of extramurally sponsored programs involving research, instruction, public service, and to legally protect, manage and commercialize intellectual property resulting from research, scholarship and creative activities on behalf of Western Kentucky University.