Hi Joshua,

In my opinion I do not believe the read more button is a good idea, but not because of an SEO issue.  I don't think it's hurting you because GoogleBot can tell the difference between a div hidden for spam and a div hidden for valid reasons.  See this quote :

The goal of our guidelines against hidden text and cloaking are to ensure that a user gets the same information as the Googlebot. However, our definition of webspam is dependent on the webmaster's intent. For example, common sense tells us that not all hidden text means webspam--e.g. hidden DIV tags for drop-down menus are probably not webspam, whereas hidden DIVs stuffed full of unrelated keywords are more likely to indicate webspam.

Source

That being said, I do not think the "Read More" button is a good idea in your particular case for the following reasons :

1. Your pages are a bit lacking in content.  You should be trying to beefing them up a bit, you are on the right track but could definitely use some improvement.  In most cases it seems like the "Read More" button is only hiding one or two sentences.
2. If you want the photo section to always be in view I would recommend putting it in the sidebar or somehow off to the side.  I am running on a MacBook Pro at 1680x1050 and the "Read More" button is not even on my screen, much less the photos section.
3. I can't find any discernable call-to-action on the pages, as a user i'm sort of unsure of the purpose of the site is aside from information.  If this is what you intended then more power to you, but it's always good to give the users some kind of action to follow, whether that be contacting you for a brochure, or booking a reservation.  Ann Smarty has a great article on how to do this.

If I were in your position I would nix the read more button, go with a 2 column layout and put the call to action in a very obvious spot in a color that stands out.  Maybe a big button with text that says "Learn to surf for only $35" or something.

I hope this helped and sorry if my advice was not what you are expecting!

This is my opinion and is not backed up by any concrete evidence.

Given the choice, I would opt for the cross-domain rel canonical.  Matt Cuts has said that google prioritizes the original page in search results (link references rel canonical within domain, not cross-domain) and based on todays whiteboard friday and this video from matt cuts, I think rel canonical is the way things are moving, particularly for content syndication.

Edit: It also just occurred to me that there is no reason you can't ask for both.  Rel canonical is helpful to GoogleBot determining who the original content creator is but offers absolutely nothing for the user.  It takes little more than the flick of a pen to require your syndication partners to include both rel canonical and a link back.

Edit #2 : Regarding your question about the difference between the Google Source Attribution tag vs. Cross-Domain rel canonical :

Update 2/11/11:

We've had a lot of interest in these meta tags, particularly in how the syndication-source tag relates to rel=canonical. After evaluating this feedback, we’ve updated our system to use rel=canonical instead of syndication-source, if both are specified.

If you know the full URL, rel=canonical is preferred, and you need not specify syndication-source.

If you know a partial URL, or just the domain name, continue using syndication-source.

We've also had people ask "why metatag instead of linktag"? We actually support both forms for the tag, and you can use either. However, we believe the linktag form is more in line with the spirit of the standard, and encourage new users to implement the linktag form rather than the metatag form we originally proposed.

Source

Click on "Export to csv" in the top right hand corner of your crawl report.

When the file downloads, there is a field called "referrer" which will tell you the exact page the broken link was found on.