It's hard to pick up a boating magazine these days and not see an article about someone who set out on a voyage only to need to rescue by the U.S. Coast Guard. In some of these cases, the sailors involved where overtaken by unexpected weather events but sometimes the cause was insufficient preparation of the boat prior to the trip. In a number of the rescues undertaken, the boat in question is abandoned at sea only to wash up on the beach -- with minimal damage -- some time later. Rescues at sea are complicated, expensive, and dangerous activities for the Coast Guard or other vessels and crews providing support. In some well-known cases, the captain of the vessel did not want to abandon his vessel; in others it seemed he wanted to use the "abandon ship" option all too quickly. Who should pay for such rescues? What, if any, is the responsibility of the sailors who are rescued? Should they bear some or all of these costs? Tell us who should pay for rescues at sea then take the Quick Quiz on the homepage. (Discussion topic and quiz by Warren Milberg)
- Status
Why do you think we pay taxes for?
Our taxes should cover the costs of US Coast Guard(USCG) rescues. USCG rescues should not be treated differently than police or fire dept. rescues/assistance on land. People are not charged for assistance from the police or the fire dept. when they have a car accident or house theft/fire. Why should it be different with accidents on the water?
Our taxes should cover the costs of US Coast Guard(USCG) rescues. USCG rescues should not be treated differently than police or fire dept. rescues/assistance on land. People are not charged for assistance from the police or the fire dept. when they have a car accident or house theft/fire. Why should it be different with accidents on the water?
als, if the govt charged for the rescue
then people who REALLY need rescuing might wait too long worried about the cost, as it costs 10s of thousands if not more for the average rescue. I think proper training and getting the USCG to better question people about their situation could reduce unneeded rescue calls.
then people who REALLY need rescuing might wait too long worried about the cost, as it costs 10s of thousands if not more for the average rescue. I think proper training and getting the USCG to better question people about their situation could reduce unneeded rescue calls.
Pay if responsible
given the rising number of people who are clearly irresponsible for preparing their boats, or themselves, for ocean voyages, I think these people should pay part or all of the cost of rescue IF the USCG determines that the boat or captain/crew were not up to the task or trip they set out on. Too many people seem to be dependent on others to bail them out -- and pay for -- rescueing them when they should have spent their own time and money better preparing themselves/boats to go to sea. "Real" rescues of people in distress due to no fault of their own is what taxes are for, not to bail out knotheads who should be sailing styrofoam boats in their backyard pools.
given the rising number of people who are clearly irresponsible for preparing their boats, or themselves, for ocean voyages, I think these people should pay part or all of the cost of rescue IF the USCG determines that the boat or captain/crew were not up to the task or trip they set out on. Too many people seem to be dependent on others to bail them out -- and pay for -- rescueing them when they should have spent their own time and money better preparing themselves/boats to go to sea. "Real" rescues of people in distress due to no fault of their own is what taxes are for, not to bail out knotheads who should be sailing styrofoam boats in their backyard pools.
If so many people are going to sea ill prepared...
Themselves and/or the boat...perhaps the solution might be special insurance to cover the cost of a rescue if needed. ske, our taxes do NOT cover the cost of EMS ambulance services for an injury or accident on land...the county or the private ambulance company bills you for it, which your health insurance may or may not cover entirely. If you're poor enough to be on Medicaid, Medicaid (which is funded by our tax $$) pays it...If you're old and on Medicare, the county bills you...you submit it to Medicare...they pay most of it, but not all. Medicare isn't free, though...a premium for it is deducted from social security payments. There may be other groups besides sailors (using the term generically for both power and sail) who are rescued 100% free of charge at taxpayer expense, but I can't think of any. And if your tax $$ and mine aren't paying for anyone else's ambulance ride, why should we pay for someone's else's CG helicopter ride? Seems to me they should either buy the equivilant of "trip cancellation insurance" or get a bill, same as the rest of us on land. The CG's budget is already strained to the breaking point without spending millions a year to save fools--like the one who posted recently on rec.boats.cruising that he sailed offshore from (I can't remember from where to where) after only 12 hours of sailing instruction--from their own folly.
Themselves and/or the boat...perhaps the solution might be special insurance to cover the cost of a rescue if needed. ske, our taxes do NOT cover the cost of EMS ambulance services for an injury or accident on land...the county or the private ambulance company bills you for it, which your health insurance may or may not cover entirely. If you're poor enough to be on Medicaid, Medicaid (which is funded by our tax $$) pays it...If you're old and on Medicare, the county bills you...you submit it to Medicare...they pay most of it, but not all. Medicare isn't free, though...a premium for it is deducted from social security payments. There may be other groups besides sailors (using the term generically for both power and sail) who are rescued 100% free of charge at taxpayer expense, but I can't think of any. And if your tax $$ and mine aren't paying for anyone else's ambulance ride, why should we pay for someone's else's CG helicopter ride? Seems to me they should either buy the equivilant of "trip cancellation insurance" or get a bill, same as the rest of us on land. The CG's budget is already strained to the breaking point without spending millions a year to save fools--like the one who posted recently on rec.boats.cruising that he sailed offshore from (I can't remember from where to where) after only 12 hours of sailing instruction--from their own folly.
I wonder...
how many dopey daredevils would ever start out on ill-conceived voyages like the one Peggy notes below if they knew beforehand that if they needed rescue they would be billed for it -- or sent to jail if their folly resulted in the death or injury of a rescuer.
how many dopey daredevils would ever start out on ill-conceived voyages like the one Peggy notes below if they knew beforehand that if they needed rescue they would be billed for it -- or sent to jail if their folly resulted in the death or injury of a rescuer.
I guess!
No matter how prepared one thinks they are, Murphys law has a way of changing events! I guess our society is so entwined within the money system, that people, doctors, etc. worry more about who is going to pay, than saving a life! Is that to be said for the USCG! Are the days of true adventurers gone? What about the efforts now being made to get private enterprise into space, with such things as the 10 and 50 million dollar X prize? Just as soon as someone gets into trouble, the government will get involved and spoil, what I call the coming barnstorming days of space! Who will pay for those rescues? Someone is bound to get stuck up there as they do at sea! Lets face it the human race always learns the hard way!
No matter how prepared one thinks they are, Murphys law has a way of changing events! I guess our society is so entwined within the money system, that people, doctors, etc. worry more about who is going to pay, than saving a life! Is that to be said for the USCG! Are the days of true adventurers gone? What about the efforts now being made to get private enterprise into space, with such things as the 10 and 50 million dollar X prize? Just as soon as someone gets into trouble, the government will get involved and spoil, what I call the coming barnstorming days of space! Who will pay for those rescues? Someone is bound to get stuck up there as they do at sea! Lets face it the human race always learns the hard way!
If I believed that
the gob'ment spent my tax dollars rescuing some fool that went off shore unprepared for what he might encounter I would be inclined to get just a wee bit putout about that. However each year you hear a story about the coasties stopping some nut from attempting to cross the big pond in a fishing skiff or less. I don't worry about any of that because MY taxes are spent to maintain a bridge across Deer Creek. What the Gob'ment does with your taxes is your problem.
the gob'ment spent my tax dollars rescuing some fool that went off shore unprepared for what he might encounter I would be inclined to get just a wee bit putout about that. However each year you hear a story about the coasties stopping some nut from attempting to cross the big pond in a fishing skiff or less. I don't worry about any of that because MY taxes are spent to maintain a bridge across Deer Creek. What the Gob'ment does with your taxes is your problem.
Cost is mostly BS
The only real cost of a rescue is the fuel. The pay of the workers is going to be paid if they are rescuing or not. The equipment used is going to be in inventory weather used or not. The only way I see to reduce a large amount of the cost is to totally get rid of the coast guard, which would also cut back on other duties that the CG does. Now the CG may have to do more rescues then is necessary but that can be seen as on the job training. After all, if they aren't getting enough rescue work, then they are just going to be wasting that fuel on training excersizes. So I don't want to hear it cost thousands of dollars because that is all just a numbers game.
The only real cost of a rescue is the fuel. The pay of the workers is going to be paid if they are rescuing or not. The equipment used is going to be in inventory weather used or not. The only way I see to reduce a large amount of the cost is to totally get rid of the coast guard, which would also cut back on other duties that the CG does. Now the CG may have to do more rescues then is necessary but that can be seen as on the job training. After all, if they aren't getting enough rescue work, then they are just going to be wasting that fuel on training excersizes. So I don't want to hear it cost thousands of dollars because that is all just a numbers game.
Rescue cost?
The cost of rescues for a YEAR is probably about what we spend each DAY in Iraq - it's a matter of priorities!
The cost of rescues for a YEAR is probably about what we spend each DAY in Iraq - it's a matter of priorities!
I don't think so, Franklin...
When you buy trip cancellation insurance, or a life insurance policy from a machine in the airport that's only good for the duration of the flight, that insurance doesn't impact the price of your life, health, boat or homeowners insurance...so why should a variation on the same type of insurance, purchased separately, same as trip insurance or flight insurance, have any impact on our boat insurance? If you buy it, it pays for your rescue if you need rescuing...nothing else. I suspect, that like trip insurance or flight insurance, it would be faily inexpensive, too. As for the only "real" cost...I don't know of any OJT that puts people's lives at risk...training missions are always in controlled conditions, whereas very few rescue operations are...and sometimes does cost rescuers their lives. As for the use of the equipment, the conditions that require rescuing puts a lot more wear and tear on it, and it's sometimes unnecessarily lost too. Yes, the equipment would still be inventory, and the coasties would still be on the payroll, whether they're involved in SAR or not...but there are a lot better uses of their time than spending it to rescue people who shouldn't need rescuing. As for the cost vs cost in Iraq, please move that discussion to the polical forum.
When you buy trip cancellation insurance, or a life insurance policy from a machine in the airport that's only good for the duration of the flight, that insurance doesn't impact the price of your life, health, boat or homeowners insurance...so why should a variation on the same type of insurance, purchased separately, same as trip insurance or flight insurance, have any impact on our boat insurance? If you buy it, it pays for your rescue if you need rescuing...nothing else. I suspect, that like trip insurance or flight insurance, it would be faily inexpensive, too. As for the only "real" cost...I don't know of any OJT that puts people's lives at risk...training missions are always in controlled conditions, whereas very few rescue operations are...and sometimes does cost rescuers their lives. As for the use of the equipment, the conditions that require rescuing puts a lot more wear and tear on it, and it's sometimes unnecessarily lost too. Yes, the equipment would still be inventory, and the coasties would still be on the payroll, whether they're involved in SAR or not...but there are a lot better uses of their time than spending it to rescue people who shouldn't need rescuing. As for the cost vs cost in Iraq, please move that discussion to the polical forum.
We once paid for it
How quickly we forget that boater’s once had a federal fee (or tax) on their boats primarily for funding the Coast Guard. Remember those little annual stickers we all had to put onto the bow? What happened to that? Well, boating is expensive, and boaters tend to be wealthy, and therefore politically savvy. As they also like to save a buck on their pastime, even on things that are for their own good, it is little wonder that the fee was soon ended. Nevertheless, our society values organizations that save lives. Remember, fire and police departments save lives first, property second. We all gripe about the property taxes to support these organizations, but we are all quite ready to call them heroes. Same for the Coast Guard. No body likes to pay federal taxes nor watch our money poorly spent, but how often do we say “Thank God for the Coast Guard.”
How quickly we forget that boater’s once had a federal fee (or tax) on their boats primarily for funding the Coast Guard. Remember those little annual stickers we all had to put onto the bow? What happened to that? Well, boating is expensive, and boaters tend to be wealthy, and therefore politically savvy. As they also like to save a buck on their pastime, even on things that are for their own good, it is little wonder that the fee was soon ended. Nevertheless, our society values organizations that save lives. Remember, fire and police departments save lives first, property second. We all gripe about the property taxes to support these organizations, but we are all quite ready to call them heroes. Same for the Coast Guard. No body likes to pay federal taxes nor watch our money poorly spent, but how often do we say “Thank God for the Coast Guard.”
Look at the total picture
One must look at the total picture. Rescues are costly. As pointed out earlier, the real expense is fuel. So how much expense is really involved? Economically, weigh this out. How much is the boating industry worth? That would include production, maintainance, storage, marinas, restaurants, etc, etc... We have to include the benefits of our sport with the negatives. Rescue is the cost we pay for the industry. I don't have figures, but I am willing to bet the economic beneifits far outwiegh the liabilities.
One must look at the total picture. Rescues are costly. As pointed out earlier, the real expense is fuel. So how much expense is really involved? Economically, weigh this out. How much is the boating industry worth? That would include production, maintainance, storage, marinas, restaurants, etc, etc... We have to include the benefits of our sport with the negatives. Rescue is the cost we pay for the industry. I don't have figures, but I am willing to bet the economic beneifits far outwiegh the liabilities.
Idiots shouln't sail boats!
but they will continue to do so. Many of the people we Monday morning quarterback as "Unprepared Idiots" are just like most of us. We take precautions, do our checks and sometimes Murphy just takes over and screws things up. We call them Idiots, unless it is us of course. I like the current system where we support the Coast Guard with general tax revenue. It gives me great confidence to sail off shore and know there can be some help forthcoming if things go badly. Also, don't forget that they also perform duties on rivers and lakes. Frequently, we hear some boater has had a problem on Kentucky Lake or Barkley through the Ohio Valley Group. Nearby boaters usually provide the assistance, but if they are not available, the Coast Guard gets them some help. Franklin is mostly right about the cost. I was an Air Force Pilot years ago and flew tankers. We had to fly so many hours either refueling, overwater, night, day, instrument, etc. to maintain our readiness. It costs lots of money, but the money was spent regardless of the mission we flew because we had to do it anyway. Same is true of the Coast Guard I suspect. I imagine they are sitting now hoping to use their skills, while at the same time not wanting someone to get hurt in the process. Thank God for America where we have these things - I for one think government should provide the Coast Guard function and I don't want to be further charged for it and I don't want it privitized!
but they will continue to do so. Many of the people we Monday morning quarterback as "Unprepared Idiots" are just like most of us. We take precautions, do our checks and sometimes Murphy just takes over and screws things up. We call them Idiots, unless it is us of course. I like the current system where we support the Coast Guard with general tax revenue. It gives me great confidence to sail off shore and know there can be some help forthcoming if things go badly. Also, don't forget that they also perform duties on rivers and lakes. Frequently, we hear some boater has had a problem on Kentucky Lake or Barkley through the Ohio Valley Group. Nearby boaters usually provide the assistance, but if they are not available, the Coast Guard gets them some help. Franklin is mostly right about the cost. I was an Air Force Pilot years ago and flew tankers. We had to fly so many hours either refueling, overwater, night, day, instrument, etc. to maintain our readiness. It costs lots of money, but the money was spent regardless of the mission we flew because we had to do it anyway. Same is true of the Coast Guard I suspect. I imagine they are sitting now hoping to use their skills, while at the same time not wanting someone to get hurt in the process. Thank God for America where we have these things - I for one think government should provide the Coast Guard function and I don't want to be further charged for it and I don't want it privitized!
hmmmm, its analogous too...
If you think about it, the USCG rescue of private boaters is directly analogous to the uproar about Santorums' attempt to charge us for the weather info we have already paid for. I believe Franklin is most correct on this issue. The USCG is already bought and paid for, their time, their equipment, everything. The cost to the taxpayer is exactly the same whether they rescue an idiot or not. This recent notion that each should provide his own coverage to pay for what state and federal taxes have already paid is 'scam', oure and simple. Why do you think we are inundated with lobbyist/congressmen/administration corruption and fraud scandals? Privatize a war, lets let our friends in Halliburton run a war for us on a cost plus basis! Yepper that worked out well hasn't it? BAck to boating, the idea that search and rescue is an undue burden comes about from LOCALLY provided seervices i.e. stupis flatland Texans inundate the Colorado Rockies to ski and rock climb...out of shape, improperly equipped and otherwise prepared, they require rescuing. But heres the kicker, it's the County Sheriffs Rescue, and or volunteer S&R who foots the bill, no tax dollars, or at least non to cover the onslaught of Texans, leaving locals short funded and themselves at risk. So no, to ask for additional monies even from the incredibly stupid yuppies in their new 40+ chlorox bottles is bad logic, even incredibly stupid logic. ...but then I really have no strong feelings on this subject either. <grin>
If you think about it, the USCG rescue of private boaters is directly analogous to the uproar about Santorums' attempt to charge us for the weather info we have already paid for. I believe Franklin is most correct on this issue. The USCG is already bought and paid for, their time, their equipment, everything. The cost to the taxpayer is exactly the same whether they rescue an idiot or not. This recent notion that each should provide his own coverage to pay for what state and federal taxes have already paid is 'scam', oure and simple. Why do you think we are inundated with lobbyist/congressmen/administration corruption and fraud scandals? Privatize a war, lets let our friends in Halliburton run a war for us on a cost plus basis! Yepper that worked out well hasn't it? BAck to boating, the idea that search and rescue is an undue burden comes about from LOCALLY provided seervices i.e. stupis flatland Texans inundate the Colorado Rockies to ski and rock climb...out of shape, improperly equipped and otherwise prepared, they require rescuing. But heres the kicker, it's the County Sheriffs Rescue, and or volunteer S&R who foots the bill, no tax dollars, or at least non to cover the onslaught of Texans, leaving locals short funded and themselves at risk. So no, to ask for additional monies even from the incredibly stupid yuppies in their new 40+ chlorox bottles is bad logic, even incredibly stupid logic. ...but then I really have no strong feelings on this subject either. <grin>
What is it worth?
One contrary view...perhaps that USCG is a bought and paid for item that we can use. In most cases the rescues are not that scary or harrowing. But that is not all. From the perspective of a military man (no politics here), when given a mission it will be done. It is in the USCG mission - right on their homepage, first sentences. In 2001 alone more than 4000 lives were saved by the USCG. We have all seen the pictures of incredible rescues that required a Search and Rescue trained swimmer/diver to jump from a helicopter and rescue personnel at sea. This can be a life or death decision. So what is the cost? Is it right that they get to risk their lives for poorly prepared boating neophytes who just wanted to go out in the biggest and baddest weather becuase they could? I am not sure that the threat of cost could overcome these folks heading out in their boats. Just offering a perspective to the paid and bought theory; there are some costs that can not be forgotten.
One contrary view...perhaps that USCG is a bought and paid for item that we can use. In most cases the rescues are not that scary or harrowing. But that is not all. From the perspective of a military man (no politics here), when given a mission it will be done. It is in the USCG mission - right on their homepage, first sentences. In 2001 alone more than 4000 lives were saved by the USCG. We have all seen the pictures of incredible rescues that required a Search and Rescue trained swimmer/diver to jump from a helicopter and rescue personnel at sea. This can be a life or death decision. So what is the cost? Is it right that they get to risk their lives for poorly prepared boating neophytes who just wanted to go out in the biggest and baddest weather becuase they could? I am not sure that the threat of cost could overcome these folks heading out in their boats. Just offering a perspective to the paid and bought theory; there are some costs that can not be forgotten.
Maybe fines would be in order?
I don't like the idea of the rescuee having to pay the tab, but maybe a fine system would be in order. For instance, when you're in an auto accident, a citation is usually issued. How about a system where the USCG issued a citation for any infraction(s) that contributed to the need for a rescue.
I don't like the idea of the rescuee having to pay the tab, but maybe a fine system would be in order. For instance, when you're in an auto accident, a citation is usually issued. How about a system where the USCG issued a citation for any infraction(s) that contributed to the need for a rescue.
Number is inflated
That number has to be inflatted. That's almost 11 people every day. I don't believe it for a second. Are they counting the people who just need a tow on a lake when the boat's battery ran down? That's not saving a life...that's saving a crew from having to swim to shore.
That number has to be inflatted. That's almost 11 people every day. I don't believe it for a second. Are they counting the people who just need a tow on a lake when the boat's battery ran down? That's not saving a life...that's saving a crew from having to swim to shore.
Maybe not., Franklin...and a comment for Herb...
The CG AUX is the civilian volunteer arm of the USCG...The USCG only maintains a presence on coastal waters and navigable interstate waterways, and not all parts of those. The AUX IS the CG--except they have no law enforcement authority--on non-interstate inland waterways where there is no CG presence, and they operate under orders from the nearest USCG station (I was an AUX memeber on Lanier...we had to call the CG station in Charleston to log in when we went on duty, on patrol or on the radio in the ops center, and call 'em back when our 4 hour duty shift was done). So if all the AUX "rescues" (rarely anything more serious than towing someone who fried an impeller, ran out of gas, or managed to tear up a prop by failing to pay attention to his depth finder) are included in the USCG stats, 4000 rescues a year would be a realistic number. Herb, what COLREG violation covers "we don't know what to do in winds over 15k and we're scared sh**less...get us out of here!" with no other vessel within 50 miles? There has to be a rules violation to base a fine on...but if they're in open sea and they haven't hit anyone or become a hazard to navigation. Land has roads, and both moving and stationary objects to hit..traffic lights, traffic lanes, speed limits...none of which exist in open water. "Didn't have enough experience to get out of sight of land in the first place" isn't a violation of any COLREG or Inland Rule...So unless the boat is holed or sinks and creates an oil slick, what's the basis for any fines?
The CG AUX is the civilian volunteer arm of the USCG...The USCG only maintains a presence on coastal waters and navigable interstate waterways, and not all parts of those. The AUX IS the CG--except they have no law enforcement authority--on non-interstate inland waterways where there is no CG presence, and they operate under orders from the nearest USCG station (I was an AUX memeber on Lanier...we had to call the CG station in Charleston to log in when we went on duty, on patrol or on the radio in the ops center, and call 'em back when our 4 hour duty shift was done). So if all the AUX "rescues" (rarely anything more serious than towing someone who fried an impeller, ran out of gas, or managed to tear up a prop by failing to pay attention to his depth finder) are included in the USCG stats, 4000 rescues a year would be a realistic number. Herb, what COLREG violation covers "we don't know what to do in winds over 15k and we're scared sh**less...get us out of here!" with no other vessel within 50 miles? There has to be a rules violation to base a fine on...but if they're in open sea and they haven't hit anyone or become a hazard to navigation. Land has roads, and both moving and stationary objects to hit..traffic lights, traffic lanes, speed limits...none of which exist in open water. "Didn't have enough experience to get out of sight of land in the first place" isn't a violation of any COLREG or Inland Rule...So unless the boat is holed or sinks and creates an oil slick, what's the basis for any fines?
- Status