Open Water Swimming newspaper article

Way to go Marianne & Scott!

Great job. Why is Ashland State Park closed? Is it budget? Read the comments below the article, the guy from Ashland says swim out of Ashland because there are no guards. First I don't have many open water swims under my belt besides in races, so this question may seem dumb, but why not just swim there.
Personally I think it was not smart for the commenter to say that as it raises a red flag, but is he right? Will you get bothered at places like that. One of the few open water swims I have done (in the past) was from the small beach where the Ashland Tri starts to the island (back and forth). I had no issues with anyone saying anything to me. But I only did that once.
Is there anyone out there getting their open water swims in still?

Ashand is closed due to the State budget. I have only done one OWS there and it was quite weedy. I will pretty much swim anywhere but I am not a big fan of weeds.

I really do believe that DCR is going to consider allowing OWS in Central Mass. I have had many discussions over the past few years and I think they are finally coming around. There is a meeting soon to discuss this.In addition to talking with DCR I have also contacted my State Senator and Rep. Jenn Callahan was very helpful Senator Moore..not so much.We need a place that is safe to swim in central Mass!!!!! 

The article was pretty accurate...except anthony t was with me when we got told we had to get on the boat because it was illegal to OWS!!!!

This may not be logistical but what about creating a 10 yard wide lane that covers a long stretch of a lake (maybe one side to another on a narrow or small lake)? What I am thinking is the large orange balls (turn buoys during races) as the floats and rope between them. They could have some form of safety flotation on the sides of the lane so if there is a swimmer in distress they can can swim over or if they are new stay close to the boundary line.

I don't know, there has to be a safe way though.

This is America - we're supposed to be home of the free and land of the brave. 

We should not have to grovel and beg OUR government for permission to swim. These people work for us. We pay taxes. We pay their salaries. I am not signing any stinking waiver - it's a waste of taxpayer money and just ads another layer of nonsense they can throw on us for no good reason at all. 

As for swimming lanes, that's also not a good idea. If they have swimming lanes for us then I want walking lanes for people walking in the state parks, and boat lanes for the boats. If we are to be restricted, then so should they. Can you imagine getting into an argument with some idiot for swimming outside a lane? It just opens up a whole new can of worms.

Come on, people. We should not be giving in by agreeing to or even proposing measures such as this. After all, everyone can swim at Walden without any problems. It's been that way for years. Why are they sticking it to us in western suburbs by disallowing Hopkinton? The best solution is simply to handle all DCR parks as Walden and some others that have not been mentioned.
 
I just don't want triathletes to roll over and give in to idiotic measures such as waivers, permits and lanes. That's absurd. Please do not allow it.

I really did not want to rant. But I did!  

FTBS,
I agree with you whole heartedly. It is 100% unfair that we can't just swim when and where we want. As far as I'm concerned you take the personal risk on every time you jump in the water. That's the swimmers choice. Same goes for every time you pedal on a bike or your foot hits the pavement.

It's clear though that they are aware of the open water swimming in the central MA bodies of water. It's also clear that they are not going to allow it without rules and regulations. Personally I would like to get a lot more open water swims in and do not want to get fined every time I attempt this. So why not figure something out that pleases the government and the swimmers at the same time.

Just to let you know that most waterways have boating lanes and a lot of places have restricted areas to walk/run. I'm not saying creating a swimming lane is the answer, but it's certainly better than not being allowed in the water at all.

I do think they should allow us to make our own choices and take on the personal risk without having restrictions or signing a waiver, but at this point it doesn't sound like this is up for negotiation.

Actually, it's VERY clear that they already allow OWS at Walden and other facilities - and this has been going on for many years. I met a lady who has been doing OWS at Nickerson State Park for decades.

No need to add another layer of useless red tape.

Don't you realize what happens - every time you add authority you automatically limit your freedoms.

By agreeing to set up regulations you're inadvertantly putting something in place that will ultimately be used to restrict us.

Yes I agree. Do you think that it will be easy to swim (open water swim) if no rules or regs are made here in central MA? Maybe this is my own head trash, but I feel that government is aware of this topic now and will make it very difficult for us to swim. I wish this wasn't the case, but I don't think they'll forget about it if we do nothing and continue to swim against their rules.

It goes beyond triathletes.  A couple left-of-field thoughts here to add to the ranting:

Teaching kids to swim is an great thing.  How are we expected to care about teaching kids the skill and important safety lesson of swimming if they'll never make it out of a 4' deep chlorinated pool where you couldn't drown unless you dove in head first?

The other tragic thing is that the DCR doesn't seem to realize that people being able to be in and fully enjoy the lakes and parks and trails and shoreline is what makes us give a crap about conservation.  If no one gets to play in the lakes, no one will care if they turn into disgusting polluted puddles.  How's anyone supposed to care about the environment if we put yellow caution tape around it?

Just to add... why DCR is overstepping here. Their job is to maintain safe facilities, not to keep people safe within those facilities by nannying them. For example, fixing a broken bridge is something they should be doing, not following us around the park while we make use of the facility - swimming, walking, riding or running.

They're also maintaining a double standard - for example, they allow kids to swim without life guards and never hassle them (early in the season and early morning). But oh, if a an open water swimmer wants to go for a swim, that's basically a crime.

The other double standard is that they allow OWS at Walden and other facilities, but not Hopkinton.

Basically, if they say it's a "safety" issue, that's a load of BS. Why is it a "safety" issue at Hopkinton but not Walden?

Again, I pay the same taxes as the people around Walden. I also want to swim at Hopkinton without being hassled.

WELL PUT!

There are a couple of things in play here:

1. The rule is the same at both parks. Because of Walden's history, there's been a "turn the other way" approach, but that approach goes against the stated rules. The folks swimming at Walden have essentially been living on borrowed time for quite a while.

2. As it was explained to me directly by a director from the DCR in response to a call I made when the announcement was made: the concern is not as much for us, the triathletes doing the OWS, who have practice at distance swimming, and know how to handle ourselves for the most part. The specific issue that was discussed with me is that say some triathlete is out in the open water, doing their thing, and some dingo who's been out in the sun all day, maybe had a couple beers, says "I can do that", and he and his buddy try it. They get about halfway across and they're in trouble, and they need rescued. This isn't hypothetical. It's happened twice this year,  and the most recent time involved rescuing someone who had already slipped under the surface.

3. It is exactly the same as the broken bridge. They employ lifeguards to protect the public within the roped in swimming area, similar to maintenance on a bridge; preventative protection. However, if they let a bridge go, and then someone gets hurt it's more work and cost to fix the bridge ones it breaks to repair it, plus the cost of the persons injuries. There is far more risk in a deep water rescue than a shallow water rescue, to both the person and the staff.

I personally hope they can find a way to allow the DWS to remain unhindered but Im guessing some sort of passive safety measure will be required, whether it's the buddy system or a noodle, I dont know. I was told permits wont happen, and they'd prefer not to do waivers.