RE: [Cal_Boats] rescue
Another reply to this message looked at this from the tradition of the sea.
I agree with that. On the other hand, Chris makes valid points.
The idea I like is just continuing the trend of charging for rescue. There was
a time when the Coast Guard would tow disabled boats here in Long Island
Sound, now they won't - the change was driven by economics.
I don't see why a national government shouldn't charge for rescues at sea.
The pricing model is open to debate - being what I am, I would favor the
charge being based on ability to pay, including if necessary, future earnings.
Taking that to the next level, I think it perfectly acceptable that organized and
demonstrably costly (from the SAR view) events such as Sydney-Hobart be
required to post bond or show proof of insurance before the commencement
of the event.
While none of this may be palatable, I thing the alternatives are worse - those
being measures that punish the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible.
And I do class Sydney-Hobart among the later class. Not because they
indulge in a high-risk activity, but because they expect others to par for it.
I would NOT favor requiring ANY and ALL offsore endevours to post bond. This
is because the cost of a bond or insurance will reflect the costs incurred by
the irresponsible. The responsible parties should not have to pay. Similar
to diferent medical and life insurance rates charged for non-smokers and
smokers.
I comes back to _demonstrable_ risk. S-H has a track record of high SAR
expense. I do not. On the other hand, if I set off to circumnavigate tomorrow,
that would be high risk. I have neither the preparation nor the experiance
to do such a thing.
But if I did set off anyway, and called for rescue, I would not complain if
I paid for it for the rest of my life. After all, if I didn't, the rest of my life
would be rather short!
td
From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Chris Campbell
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:43 PM
To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Cal_Boats] rescue
Here's what I wrote after seeing the ABC News link on the rescue. It didn't show up in my post, although it was there in my "sent" folder.
While reading this, I was thinking about the tradition of rescue at sea--its obligations, and also its expenses (in terms of both risk and money). I was also wondering if the Chilean navy might be tired of rescuing adventurers who encounter bad weather and related disaster.
The rescue tradition, the obligation to go to the aid of vessels and crew in distress, makes a lot of sense when we're dealing with commerce--not because commerce involves money, really, but because commerce is related to human social activity and culture. Recreational risk-takers fall into another category. Their activity doesn't have quite the link to necessity that a tanker-load of oil, a hold-full of wheat, or other commercial cargoes have. I can understand why a government might object to spending large sums rescuing people from recreational danger.
If I were in danger, I would certainly hope that somebody's navy, coast guard, or commercial shippers might come out to assist me. But I really shouldn't expect to receive that treatment as a freebie, or an entitlement. Here in the US, I support taxation to maintain a Coast Guard ready and able to protect all of us mariners, commercial and recreational alike. I think it's good policy. But for poorer countries and those with sparser populations, it does seem a bit unfair to expect them to spring to the aid of folks who are out there for a thrill. Basically, that's what we recreational folks are out there for.
What do others think?
Chris Campbell
time to ponder when the boat's on the hard
DISCLAIMER:
Important Notice *************************************************
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unintended recipients are prohibited from taking action on the basis of information in this e-mail.E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or may be intercepted, deleted or interfered with without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. If you are not comfortable with the risks associated with e-mail messages, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with IPC. IPC reserves the right, to the extent and under circumstances permitted by applicable law, to retain, monitor and intercept e-mail messages to and from its systems.