The Challenging Conditions Myth

Background

The challenging conditions myth was created over forty years ago by influencers in the sea kayaking industry who disliked wearing wetsuits and were afraid that promoting cold water safety would reduce the rapidly growing number of people interested in sea kayaking. It was developed as a counter-argument to cold water safety advocates who said that paddlers should always wear thermal protection when paddling on cold water.

The Worst Myth Ever

The challenging conditions myth is arguably the worst cold water myth ever created. It says that you don't need to wear a wetsuit or drysuit when paddling on lethally cold water - unless you PLAN on encountering "challenging conditions". It claims that instead of wearing thermal protection, you can safely take "less extreme" precautions.

This dangerous myth completely ignores the fact that plenty of cold water close calls and fatalities happen when paddlers capsize close to shore in flat-calm conditions - or fall into wind-shadow traps and get blown far offshore into much rougher water - or fail to anticipate wind blowing against a tidal current that's flowing over a shoal. It also ignores all the cases where people instantly drowned because cold shock caused them to gasp underwater.

The faulty reasoning it promotes is exactly like saying that you don’t need to wear your seatbelt unless you plan on encountering “challenging driving conditions” or plan on getting into an accident. Instead of wearing your seat belt, you can just drive carefully, learn to read maps, have a first-aid kit in your car, and avoid heavy traffic, slippery roads, and high speeds. That's a safety argument that clearly makes no sense.

Drivers wear seat belts - not because they PLAN on having an accident, but because they can't predict the future - and wearing a seat belt makes it much less likely that they'll get seriously injured or killed if an accident happens. Safety-conscious paddlers wear wetsuits and drysuits for exactly the same reason.

Black Swans and Challenging Conditions

The challenging conditions myth is essentially an institutionalized Black Swan fallacy masquerading as a reasonable risk assessment - while systematically eliminating the protection that matters most when risk assessment fails. In practice, it suppresses the very hazard awareness that might prompt paddlers to protect themselves against a low-probability, high-consequence event.

It tells paddlers to plan for what they expect to encounter and to disregard a well-known and thoroughly documented hazard simply because it’s outside of their expectations.

But nobody plans on accidentally capsizing, and nobody thinks they're going to die from cold shock, incapacitation and sudden drowning when they head out for a fun time on the water. None of the people who've lost their lives as a result of a sudden, unprotected cold water immersion, ever, in their wildest dreams, anticipated that they would encounter the conditions that killed them. If they had, they would have stayed home.

You Can Find It Everywhere

The challenging conditions myth is hard to miss because it's been widely adopted by some well-meaning national organizations and woven into a lot of brochures, articles, books, safety messages, how-to videos, and gear checklists - as well as experiential and instructional programs.

It Promotes Risk Enhancement

Risk Enhancement rather than Risk Management is exactly what happens when a myth that eliminates protective behavior gets institutionally embedded in safety protocols and curricula. There are many variations of this myth, but they all promote the same dangerous advice.

Three Noteworthy Examples

"If you do choose to paddle in challenging conditions, dress for immersion.”

- Deep Trouble, Broze and Gronseth, Ragged Mountain Press.

"For paddlers who wear lifejackets, extreme weather and water conditions are the usual cause of trouble. If you encounter these conditions, stay off the water."

- American Canoe Association

"... if you plan to paddle in cold water, you just need to be more conservative with your decisions. Paddle in calmer conditions, paddle closer to shore, and never paddle alone. The safety gear you bring on the water will vary depending on the type of outing that you're doing."

- Kayak Safety Video, PaddleTV, Heliconia Press.

Bad advice like this also has a tendency to morph into more elaborate, but equally dangerous forms. For example, the Challenging Conditions argument that's promoted by the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) actually takes the position that wetsuits or drysuits are "unnecessarily extreme".

"We balance our clothing for both the water and surface conditions. Our best protection from cold shock is to be off the water if a capsize is likely. If you cannot get to protected water or to the shore, dressing for cold water immersion may help, with a focus on insulation on the head and neck.

Some people advocate wearing wetsuits and other extreme cold water protective gear. This would be wise for an aggressive paddler who is likely to tip over or be slammed in the face by a cold wave, but for the more casual ... expeditionary paddler, this extreme is unnecessary."

--National Outdoor Leadership School. Sea Kayak Instructor Notebook 2005 Edition

We lead best when we lead by example. Influential instructors, educators, and organizations have a responsibility to set a good safety example for the people they serve - who should not go home from a paddling class, a certification course, or a kayaking expedition in Alaska or Patagonia feeling that wetsuits and drysuits are "unnecessarily extreme".

Wearing thermal protection is a precaution you take precisely because you can't predict the future. It's also a guardrail that prevents you from falling into heuristic traps - like the experienced paddlers whose incidents are linked at the bottom of this page.

Paddle TV's "Extreme" Gear Review

This mischaracterization of thermal protection as "extreme" also appears in gear reviews. For example, in a YouTube drysuit review posted by Paddle TV in September 2021, the narrator perpetuates the myth that thermal protection is only for extreme conditions - repeating phrases like "extreme conditions", "extreme cold", and "freezing or very cold water" when talking about thermal protection. This kind of information ignores the scientific fact that most people will experience maximum-intensity cold shock at water temperatures between 50-60F (10-15C).

Misleading Gear Checklists

The Challenging Conditions myth has also wormed its way into "essential gear" checklists for cold water paddling. The National Center for Cold Water Safety recommends Five Golden Rules that empower you to build a strong cold water safety net. Rule Two is Dress for The Water Temperature.

With that in mind, look at the following "What You Need For Cold Water Paddling" list and ask yourself what's missing:

Thermos of hot liquid in your hatch.
Having "high-energy" snacks to "stoke your furnace".
Carrying spare clothes in a drybag.
Paddling close to shore in "protected waters".
Ability to make a fire.
Leaving a "float plan" with someone.
Paddling with a group.

What's Missing?

The problem here is not that any of those "essential gear" recommendations are necessarily bad. It's that the list doesn't mention two critical pieces of cold water safety gear: PFD's and Thermal Protection. It's subtle, but really significant, because it tells paddlers that they don't need to bother with that gear - and especially with thermal protection. As long as they have all this other stuff - like high-energy snacks to "stoke your furnace" - they'll be just fine.

A Very Close Call

In the Sea Kayaker magazine article he wrote about his near-death experience on the freezing Mississippi River, experienced paddler Randy Morgard explained that he knew a cold water capsize would be dangerous. He also owned a wetsuit but chose to leave it at home because he figured that he simply “wouldn’t need one for a flatwater paddle”.

Randy was no wet-behind-the-ears newbie. He started canoeing in 1972, he’d spent a lot of time on flat water in his sea kayak, and had a lot of confidence in his flatwater roll. And unless the river was really shallow and he was bouncing off the bottom, he had a pretty reliable whitewater roll as well. It had been a long time since he unintentionally capsized his sea kayak, and even longer since he’d had to wet exit. He also knew about self-rescues and had even conducted paddle-float rescue demonstrations for his local paddling club. In the event that he did need help, he carried both a cell phone and a VHF radio.

When it came to the mighty Mississippi, he had both solo and group experience on the section of river he planned to paddle. And from his perspective, the paddling conditions he was going to encounter were tame. In his words: “...calm, slow-moving water, sheltered from the main channel by a string of islands.” It wasn’t windy or raining, just a little cold, and he’d had plenty of experience dealing with cold weather. You’d be really hard pressed to find anyone who would describe the paddling conditions Randy encountered as “challenging” for someone with his level of experience.

A split-second mental comparison of his paddling skills versus the seemingly benign river conditions allowed Randy to be very comfortable with a decision to dress for the air rather than the water temperature. It was a classic heuristic trap that came within a whisker of costing him his life, but at the time, nothing about it seemed reckless or ill advised. That's because all heuristic decisions "feel" both confident and right.

With the water temperature near freezing, his forget-about-the-wetsuit decision left him with absolutely no margin for error, guaranteeing that any capsize would instantly morph into a life-threatening event—a desperate race against time and the terribly lethal power of cold water. All it took to set that race in motion was a tiny miscalculation on his part, a little slip of his paddle on some ice.

As he wrote in his article: “It’s easy to dismiss these concerns because we have no intention of swimming.” Randy may never have heard someone make the often repeated “challenging conditions” argument, but he was definitely following its flawed logic.