the court that the record is very thin and that is because the district court made a decision so a sponsor a right when the petition for exoneration was filed that the court believed it didn't have subject matter jurisdiction it took no evidence we didn't have it here we didn't have a hearing in the court just looked at the papers made the decision search of her wits with someone appreciate kind of use the i know it when i see it test and the judge concluded that he didn't see it so we're here to day on appeal the judge saw everything in the district court saw everything except the last part of the jurisdictional test for admiralty which is the connection test that there be a substantial connection to maritime law or traditional maritime activity and that was decided in an executive jet the old test was just a location test if you were on the water used to be much use and then what but there was a reason for executive jet because we didn't w as just it's just a stuart said an executive jet we don't want it kate the federal courts to be flooded with cases with swimmer versus swimmer so there had to be something more than just that kind of connection obviously in the facts of the executive jet it wasn't even a vessel that was involved and it was primarily over land so the of course that made sense of the factual basis of the case not to extend jurisdiction there and the court also said we're not it didn't limit that if the case there we're not looking at the facts of this particular case necessarily to determine whether so if your guy had crashed and if the person on the paddle board had crashed into a big ocean liner and it sank that wouldn't really make a difference we look at the general activity recognised in the northern queen case or i don't know if that was her st decision as a district court judge sitting by designation on the th circuit but that case involved a captain navigating his vessel the vessel sa out and so navigating a vessel has always been and the case even gerbert says that when you have something involving a vessel it's almost automatically assume that it's that that meets the connection test so much you're really already in that area the extent that's the general rule the exceptions are for example suppose that your keep your the exact exceptions that we put in the brief your honor is that suppose a in a car waiting to be ferried and you have another car hits you on the ferry that's not substantial enough even though it might relate to us so but that's not my difficulty with focusing only on whether this paddle board is a vessel and i have no idea whether it is under traditional definitions you say it is they say this is that really this this activity has nothing to do with traditional maritime activity i mean in the real world holistic sense so what you're arguing is it's long as we can fit it into the box of a vessel where we and  fight with the other side about what a vessel is the analysis is over but doesn't accord tell us to look at whether or not this effects traditional maritime activity of course your honor and the way that you look at that look at the claimants the climate haven't even instruction but i'm a twenty year old nine man who doesn't know how to swim you should have given me more instruction on my before i chimed ok so how does that have any activity in relationship to traditional marriage time  because that if he got out to swim and they hadn't given him sufficient life vest would that be a maritime act you know it would not your on it would meet the test because it's not it doesn't involve a vessel again you're you're really focused on th in the middle of the channel he could have a structed other vessels but also the claim it's a legend their complaint violation of the nab rule thirty three dollars thirty seven cents specifically that he didn't have a signaling device or a flashlight  or the vessel wasn't lip and the coast guard has already determined and made a determination and but it was cited in the brief that they're going to look at pedal boards as vessels and they require paddle boarders to have those that equipment why wouldn't i i mean what's the difference between this report in the patent or so a surfboard is not is is only used in this in the surf it's not used as a means of transportation it's outside the surface out technically you could argue that a surfboard is a vessel and in fact the middle district of florida in the davis case said that it was put in when you say can be used for transportation one place to another but then we have that supreme court language that says consists you know you have to consider from a reasonable observer ok and whether the reasonable observer looking to the physical characteristics of this water craft which i guess here is that is the paddle board would consider it to be designed to any practical degree i think that's the loews mn case to any practical to grae for carrying people or things on water and so i guess i'm highlighting a reasonable observer and then practical degree i mean to what practical degree  very few minutes left that i wanted to reserve on rebuttal but to answer your question the primary difference is the pedal boards only function is for transportation yeah you could lay on it on the beach but it's only its primary function is to move a person from one place to another that's completely different than the lowest in case it is a partner function i've seen a lot of battle borders around beach or its primary function is to go out in the waves and move around in no but uses them actually to go from point a on land to point b they go out recreation but that's not or yes i'm going to one place but that's not the distinction because we have all kinds of recreational vessels that the court has also has long recognized that they're still considered vessels and the difference is whether it's transit if its primary purpose as a compared to like a barge like a casino like your honor knows that has the determined that it can see a floating casino the doesn't go anywhere that's not a vessel but the purpose of board is its only purpose is transportation it's to move a person from one place to another the fact that you get enjoyment out of it doesn't distinguish it or take it out of that categorization just like being on a princess cruise ship doesn't take it out of you know if you as stated by the supreme court in numerous cases of the limitations act and quoting lewis vs lewis and clark marine it is to encourage ship building and to induce capitalists to invest money in this branch of the industry and in norfolk southern railway versus james curvey the supreme court said the fundamental interest in giving rise to maritime jurisdiction is the protection of maritime commerce now your honor your honour's asked questions about the vessel and council address the vessel under fourteen u s c section two sub three it's the united states coast guard that is given to promulgated laws and enforce regulations and as the district court itself noted in that footnote one at the bottom of the last page in the legal determination from two thousand and eight what the coast guard was looking at the book did one u s c section three specifically and whether or not a specified device is a vessel and what the coast guard found and stated and what the district court was referring to was that it's based a paddle board as a vessel only when it's outside the surfing swimming and  in this case the appellant itself admitted and we submitted that as s t r to admitted that this occurred within the harbor within the surface zone in the they could paddle it it might be a close call your honor under the lows men test look my problem with both sides focusing on the definition of facile is it takes us away from the broader inquiry which is just related activity absolutely and i think that's where the court should focus i was trying to address the court's question about the vessel and it's the coast guard has already said in the area where this one was it is not a vessel your honor is whether the coast guard makes distinctions about what part of navigable waters requires lights and bells and whistles is doesn't really help us well i think i think what the court needs to look at is the nd prong of the connection test and what the supreme court said insists and as your honor noted is you don't look at the specific facts of this case you have to look at the general conduct and what is the activity in this case i know you know about traditional maritime activity correct well we don't believe it's traditional maritime economy but this is what you're talking trying to yes is it on the nd prong of the connection test which is where the court found in our favor and said therefore they don't it yes in los mn it talked about what are we talking about the characteristics of a vessel and it's said designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things a canoe you can carry things in this is a kayak a kayak you can carry things  that carries a person is not a paddle board your honner is basically a very thick surfboard and query to the court what would happen if someone took out something called a paddle board laid on their stomach and did a swimming mo to look at the facts of the case we're supposed to look at it at the level of get around it is more similar to a surfboard with the courts have said is not a vessel is a boogie board correct phone number and there's a couple district something you know and looking around and trying to figure out what's what the other courts have done here do we not what do we do with that i think your your honour's have to look at what was the activity in this case of the defendant the activity was renting a paddle board for recreational use within the swimming and so what's your best case for that our best case would be  i'm sorry there was a negative in there yeah so and i'm trying to figure out if there's any case out there that has extended admiralty jurisdiction to an incident that did not involve  denies admiralty jurisdiction spite the fact that the court has found it to be a vessel i believe there is your honor i think i have to look it up i think there honour's i think the other thing that's very important to look at in this case is the activity as your honor was mentioning earlier this is a rec reaction to recreational activity it is not a boat i mean people go out on the boats they're not necessarily going out for some particular maritime or commercial purposes i mean most of the boaters are out there for recreation so i'm having i'm just struggling with you know how we are how we're supposed to you know resolve this case when you consider that point taken your honor but i would ask your honour's to consider the following where is that where does the line stop if a paddleboard as appellants content is a vessel and subject to maritime jurisdiction what about someone who is on a surfboard using flippers as a paddle canoe under the lows mn test is designed for caring people and things and has the course of even if i if i take the one person could do were the kayak out solely for purposes of taking the sun on the bay i mean gauging traditional draw the line here on the comet have to worry about surfboards next is accurate but i have to worry about him now so you're out your honour's and back to your question if i may briefly consider the not bluewater boating perhaps in this case but the concessionaire next door and what they rent is those inflow don't inflatable plastic swans for small children and they give them a small or that's this big and in the santa barbara harbor every inch of that is a that's what they would claim and is subject to maritime jurisdiction and we submit that is absolutely cannot be the law in the th circuit and thank you i see i'm out of time thank you and maybe you can adjust the swan scenario st your honor the swanson aereo is a toy that's not a means of transportation i know you could start fitting that into that character inner tube with the bottom on it and they get a paddle and what are that also submit it doesn't meet the statutory definition solve the the definition is a water craft or artificial contrivance a contrivance is something made for think so your honor because i don't think it's artificial contrivance used for the purposes of transportation is it capable of transportation yes but in this case that that's the definition from the supreme court as it's capable of  transportation i realize that your honor and i think perhaps the better course of action then what the supreme court is telling us to know is to make a factual for the district court to make a factual record as to what the purposes were of this particular vessel rather than to involve yes yes your honor i did mention it in the opening and that's the patron petri in case where there was a motorist that got rear ended while he was on a barge waiting for a ferry and court in that case said that's to the extent that it's too much of an extension to find ample teachers diction but in every other case there is a case in hawaii where that was said in the briefs where the somebody was scuba diving again the activity had nothing to do with operating navigating a vessel does the search and rescue in and take an army the court said that there was people operating a kayak and maybe that was or was not but certainly the your presentations here today in the arguments you have presented in support of your your case the case of blue water boating versus agnes is now submitted