- Status
Moron Licensing...
While I am not an advocate of licensing boaters, for those who make the argument that there are many licensed drivers out there who are morons the way they drive, so why license boaters, I would say this: suppose there were no licensing requirements at all for auto drivers? Just think how that would "improve" your experience on the road.... The idea that you can just plunk down some money and drive any size boat away, without any requirement that demonstrates any degree of competency, is just freaking bizarre...
While I am not an advocate of licensing boaters, for those who make the argument that there are many licensed drivers out there who are morons the way they drive, so why license boaters, I would say this: suppose there were no licensing requirements at all for auto drivers? Just think how that would "improve" your experience on the road.... The idea that you can just plunk down some money and drive any size boat away, without any requirement that demonstrates any degree of competency, is just freaking bizarre...
Good point Peter
What if an eighty year old, half blind, stroke survivor could go out and buy an RV that was made from a Greyhound bus and just get behind the wheel? Oh, wait a minute... he can! Same guy can plunk down $5million and buy a 150 foot mega yacht, go out and do dammage, play golf with the judge and buy his way out. America... the land of opportunity. And equal rights for all within their respective economic strata.
What if an eighty year old, half blind, stroke survivor could go out and buy an RV that was made from a Greyhound bus and just get behind the wheel? Oh, wait a minute... he can! Same guy can plunk down $5million and buy a 150 foot mega yacht, go out and do dammage, play golf with the judge and buy his way out. America... the land of opportunity. And equal rights for all within their respective economic strata.
All make good points
As a Great Lakes boater, I don't have a lot of experiance with SAR on the high seas - except to know that it is frightfully expensive. I would say that if a sailor prepares for a passage to the best of his/her ability, and still runs into trouble, then the USCG is the ONLY organization with the means and equipment to provide assistance. However, I do believe that a reasonable charge should be levied and charged to one's insurance. After all - most are not out there out of necessity. In most cases they are involved in the SPORT of sailing. That's different! Bill on STARGAZER
As a Great Lakes boater, I don't have a lot of experiance with SAR on the high seas - except to know that it is frightfully expensive. I would say that if a sailor prepares for a passage to the best of his/her ability, and still runs into trouble, then the USCG is the ONLY organization with the means and equipment to provide assistance. However, I do believe that a reasonable charge should be levied and charged to one's insurance. After all - most are not out there out of necessity. In most cases they are involved in the SPORT of sailing. That's different! Bill on STARGAZER
The Wally Boat...*yks
Now I know we are all sailors, but just to emphasize the point made by Peter below, i.e., anyone who can buy a boat can drive that boat without any kind of demonstration of competence (or even insurance), take a look at the 118 ft Wally boat that could hit 60 kts -- or perhaps even you if you were unlucky enough to be sailing in the vicinity.... Be careful out there folks.
Now I know we are all sailors, but just to emphasize the point made by Peter below, i.e., anyone who can buy a boat can drive that boat without any kind of demonstration of competence (or even insurance), take a look at the 118 ft Wally boat that could hit 60 kts -- or perhaps even you if you were unlucky enough to be sailing in the vicinity.... Be careful out there folks.
I must be liking this post
My objection, you don't have to pay for the police to come out in case of an accident, it's the same thing the coast gaurd does. People say the difference is that the police department doesn't bring you home, the real difference there is that if the police don't want to give you a ride home you can walk, call a friend, catch a bus, or hitch a ride therefore rescue isn't the issue, if you're away from shore, should the coast gaurd charge you? accidents are unforseen happenings, granted some people are more prone to them than others, but they happen to everyone sometime in their life, and it's much nicer to have a tax supported coast gaurd there to catch you instead of someone you need to pay second arguement the money saved/made by making rescues and such a pay as you go will not drop off the taxes you pay, you'll pay the same or more Sorry but I get realy irritated when people start discussing the cost to be charged for possibly saving someones life. I've rescued a few people and their possesions in my time, often because of their own stupidity, and I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I'd have asked them how they were going to pay for it. ken
My objection, you don't have to pay for the police to come out in case of an accident, it's the same thing the coast gaurd does. People say the difference is that the police department doesn't bring you home, the real difference there is that if the police don't want to give you a ride home you can walk, call a friend, catch a bus, or hitch a ride therefore rescue isn't the issue, if you're away from shore, should the coast gaurd charge you? accidents are unforseen happenings, granted some people are more prone to them than others, but they happen to everyone sometime in their life, and it's much nicer to have a tax supported coast gaurd there to catch you instead of someone you need to pay second arguement the money saved/made by making rescues and such a pay as you go will not drop off the taxes you pay, you'll pay the same or more Sorry but I get realy irritated when people start discussing the cost to be charged for possibly saving someones life. I've rescued a few people and their possesions in my time, often because of their own stupidity, and I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I'd have asked them how they were going to pay for it. ken
The cost of charging idiots for SAR! *box
The US government can not recover the cost for Search and Rescue (SAR) in international waters. The US has agreed to abide by the international treaty of providing SAR in international waters for free; regardless of nationality, religion, or race. If the federal government wanted to recover the federal cost of the rescues within the borders of the USA, then the 1999 National Search and Rescue Plan would have to be scraped. A whole new set of federal regulations would have to be created. Would all federal rescues within the USA be reimbursable? If not, then a set of federal rules would have to be created to determine when the federal government can be reimbursed for a specific rescue. A federal government agency would have to determine when the survivors, who were rescued, would have to reimburse the federal government for the rescue. There would have to be way to appeal that government agency’s judgment call; it would involve an appeals process involving either another government agency or the federal court system. The cost of having to reimburse the federal government for a SAR within the USA would be very costly. Because of the high cost of a SAR, insurance companies might not provide coverage. The federal government would then have to provide the SAR insurance coverage if the private sector insurance companies refuse to provide it; like the federal government's flood damage insurance for homeowners. Unlike homeowners who live in known flood prone areas, how can you tell who needs SAR insurance? Most people would have to get insurance to cover the cost of the SAR if there is the slightest possibility that they might have to be rescued by the federal government. What if you don’t get the SAR insurance? How will this affect you? The SAR insurance would probably be voluntary like federal flood insurance, but it might affect your credit rating. Credit is based on the amount of debt you have and your earning ability to pay off your debt. Also factored in is the amount of debt you could incur due to liability. The cost of the SAR liability could be factored into your credit rating if you don’t have SAR insurance and you own a boat. You might not be able to get a boat loan without having SAR insurance. You would also have to pay more money if you charter a boat. Commercial operators would pass the cost of SAR insurance to their customers, or try to recoup the adding insurance cost some other way by reducing service or limiting who they lease their boats to, or who they allow on their charter. To reduce the cost of the federal SAR insurance coverage, a set of regulations might be created. It might include: 1) Federal licensing of boat operators (similar to getting a private pilot’s license). 2) Inspections of boats (like they do for aircraft inspections by certified mechanics). 3) Possible medical checkups to ensure that the boat operators are physically able to operate the vessel (similar to a private pilot’s third class medical). This wouldn't just affect just sailors, but hunters, backcountry skiers, climbers, whitewater kayakers; anyone who might need federal rescue. Trying to recover the cost of SAR from a few idiots would add another layer of government bureaucracy which would affect the rest of us. The cost of rescuing a few idiots out on the water would be less than having the federal government set up a way to recover the cost of the rescue. Whenever the government changes the way they do things to save money, the first thing they do is create a huge bureaucracy that wastes more money then you would have recovered by having the idiots pay for the rescues. It sounds like a good idea having idiots pay for their SAR and saving the taxpayer some money, but as the saying goes; "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!" Fair Winds, Clyde
The US government can not recover the cost for Search and Rescue (SAR) in international waters. The US has agreed to abide by the international treaty of providing SAR in international waters for free; regardless of nationality, religion, or race. If the federal government wanted to recover the federal cost of the rescues within the borders of the USA, then the 1999 National Search and Rescue Plan would have to be scraped. A whole new set of federal regulations would have to be created. Would all federal rescues within the USA be reimbursable? If not, then a set of federal rules would have to be created to determine when the federal government can be reimbursed for a specific rescue. A federal government agency would have to determine when the survivors, who were rescued, would have to reimburse the federal government for the rescue. There would have to be way to appeal that government agency’s judgment call; it would involve an appeals process involving either another government agency or the federal court system. The cost of having to reimburse the federal government for a SAR within the USA would be very costly. Because of the high cost of a SAR, insurance companies might not provide coverage. The federal government would then have to provide the SAR insurance coverage if the private sector insurance companies refuse to provide it; like the federal government's flood damage insurance for homeowners. Unlike homeowners who live in known flood prone areas, how can you tell who needs SAR insurance? Most people would have to get insurance to cover the cost of the SAR if there is the slightest possibility that they might have to be rescued by the federal government. What if you don’t get the SAR insurance? How will this affect you? The SAR insurance would probably be voluntary like federal flood insurance, but it might affect your credit rating. Credit is based on the amount of debt you have and your earning ability to pay off your debt. Also factored in is the amount of debt you could incur due to liability. The cost of the SAR liability could be factored into your credit rating if you don’t have SAR insurance and you own a boat. You might not be able to get a boat loan without having SAR insurance. You would also have to pay more money if you charter a boat. Commercial operators would pass the cost of SAR insurance to their customers, or try to recoup the adding insurance cost some other way by reducing service or limiting who they lease their boats to, or who they allow on their charter. To reduce the cost of the federal SAR insurance coverage, a set of regulations might be created. It might include: 1) Federal licensing of boat operators (similar to getting a private pilot’s license). 2) Inspections of boats (like they do for aircraft inspections by certified mechanics). 3) Possible medical checkups to ensure that the boat operators are physically able to operate the vessel (similar to a private pilot’s third class medical). This wouldn't just affect just sailors, but hunters, backcountry skiers, climbers, whitewater kayakers; anyone who might need federal rescue. Trying to recover the cost of SAR from a few idiots would add another layer of government bureaucracy which would affect the rest of us. The cost of rescuing a few idiots out on the water would be less than having the federal government set up a way to recover the cost of the rescue. Whenever the government changes the way they do things to save money, the first thing they do is create a huge bureaucracy that wastes more money then you would have recovered by having the idiots pay for the rescues. It sounds like a good idea having idiots pay for their SAR and saving the taxpayer some money, but as the saying goes; "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!" Fair Winds, Clyde
Franklin...
all of your comments are right in line with some of the idiotic things you were saying over a year ago about sailing to Cancun, solo, in 10-14 days, round trip from Houston, averaging 7-8kts, dodging hurricanes, and then "if I get in trouble, I'll just call out on my VHF for help and then someone will come help me". Very dangerous attitude for OTHER sailors, or anyone else you might ask to save your ass!
all of your comments are right in line with some of the idiotic things you were saying over a year ago about sailing to Cancun, solo, in 10-14 days, round trip from Houston, averaging 7-8kts, dodging hurricanes, and then "if I get in trouble, I'll just call out on my VHF for help and then someone will come help me". Very dangerous attitude for OTHER sailors, or anyone else you might ask to save your ass!
misquote
I said 6 knots and in 17 days (2 weeks of vacation with a 3 day weekend) and still going to do it this May. Averaging 5 knots comes out to 5.6 days one way. So don't be so concerned sailor. Edited: and I wouldn't be calling just because the weather got bad. I would call if I'm dead in the water (no sail or power) or if the boat was sinking. WHO WOULDN'T?????? But I also know I'll have to ether get an SSB or a Sat phone before I go.
I said 6 knots and in 17 days (2 weeks of vacation with a 3 day weekend) and still going to do it this May. Averaging 5 knots comes out to 5.6 days one way. So don't be so concerned sailor. Edited: and I wouldn't be calling just because the weather got bad. I would call if I'm dead in the water (no sail or power) or if the boat was sinking. WHO WOULDN'T?????? But I also know I'll have to ether get an SSB or a Sat phone before I go.
Wow! A wally 118' powerboat *yks
I'm in love! Please Daddy, can I have one??? Look, I can even mount guided missiles on those neat thingies that flip over the sides!!! Those nasty sailors won't DARE get in my way!!! The girls will love it! I'll be popular! Off to buy some lottery tickets!! Watch for me, coming to a port near you soon!!! At 60 knots!!!! Wheee!!! Cheers, Bob s/v X SAIL R 8 hull speed 6.7 knots
I'm in love! Please Daddy, can I have one??? Look, I can even mount guided missiles on those neat thingies that flip over the sides!!! Those nasty sailors won't DARE get in my way!!! The girls will love it! I'll be popular! Off to buy some lottery tickets!! Watch for me, coming to a port near you soon!!! At 60 knots!!!! Wheee!!! Cheers, Bob s/v X SAIL R 8 hull speed 6.7 knots
and if you still doubt it
there is a guy at my marina who did the race to the border to veracruz (same distance and about same direction) who did it round trip in 12 (he took his time coming back) days solo in a 28 footer during the same time of year that I want to go. So I wouldn't call it idiotic.
there is a guy at my marina who did the race to the border to veracruz (same distance and about same direction) who did it round trip in 12 (he took his time coming back) days solo in a 28 footer during the same time of year that I want to go. So I wouldn't call it idiotic.
Charging for SAR
No one has mentioned it, probably because the subject has been "un-news worthy" of late, but, if charging SAR costs were to become the practice of the day, who would pay for the rescues of Cubans and Haitians attempting the passage to Florida and Puerto Rico? Yes, the CG and Navy are performing an interdiction and repatriation mission, but as often as not, there is a "rescue" involved. Food for thought. I'll stick with Clyde's responses. Steve Kamp
No one has mentioned it, probably because the subject has been "un-news worthy" of late, but, if charging SAR costs were to become the practice of the day, who would pay for the rescues of Cubans and Haitians attempting the passage to Florida and Puerto Rico? Yes, the CG and Navy are performing an interdiction and repatriation mission, but as often as not, there is a "rescue" involved. Food for thought. I'll stick with Clyde's responses. Steve Kamp
Put it on my tab!
If I got into trouble while at sea and that resulted in the need for a USCG rescue -- and the USCG determined that I was somehow at fault or failed to do something a prudent mariner should have done -- and so wanted me to pay for some or all of the rescue -- I would happy to be alive and be able to do so!
If I got into trouble while at sea and that resulted in the need for a USCG rescue -- and the USCG determined that I was somehow at fault or failed to do something a prudent mariner should have done -- and so wanted me to pay for some or all of the rescue -- I would happy to be alive and be able to do so!
Donate to the Coast Guard Foundation! *box
If you used the Search and Rescue (SAR) services of the USCG, you should donate to their public non-profit foundation. The money would be used to fund non-government funded programs. The men and women who perform SAR, do it because of their belief in humanity, not for the paycheck. It's their belief that every life is valuable that drives them to risk their own lives doing SAR. If USCG personnel had to risk their lives going out during a storm to rescue you, would you later ask them how much do I owe you for your time? It would be insulting, they didn't risk their own lives to collect a fee for the rescue. A donation to their non-profit foundation is more appropriate, showing your gratitude for their courage. That's just my opinion. Fair Winds, Clyde USCG Foundation http://www.cgfdn.org/main.html
If you used the Search and Rescue (SAR) services of the USCG, you should donate to their public non-profit foundation. The money would be used to fund non-government funded programs. The men and women who perform SAR, do it because of their belief in humanity, not for the paycheck. It's their belief that every life is valuable that drives them to risk their own lives doing SAR. If USCG personnel had to risk their lives going out during a storm to rescue you, would you later ask them how much do I owe you for your time? It would be insulting, they didn't risk their own lives to collect a fee for the rescue. A donation to their non-profit foundation is more appropriate, showing your gratitude for their courage. That's just my opinion. Fair Winds, Clyde USCG Foundation http://www.cgfdn.org/main.html
I Absolutly Agree With Clyde
Except I beleive a better place to help those who help us is the Coast Guard Mutual Assistance Fund. http://www.cgmahq.org/DEFAULT.HTM This organization is dedicated strictly to the assistance of Coasties and their families. The Coast Guard Foundation does good work on behalf of the Coast Guard but their fosus is not on assisting individuals.
Except I beleive a better place to help those who help us is the Coast Guard Mutual Assistance Fund. http://www.cgmahq.org/DEFAULT.HTM This organization is dedicated strictly to the assistance of Coasties and their families. The Coast Guard Foundation does good work on behalf of the Coast Guard but their fosus is not on assisting individuals.
Final results
Final results for the Quick Quiz ending January 2, 2006: Rescues at sea should be paid by: 36% The USCG 25% Shared by the individuals rescued and the USCG 22% The individuals rescued 16% Determined by an Admiralty Court
Final results for the Quick Quiz ending January 2, 2006: Rescues at sea should be paid by: 36% The USCG 25% Shared by the individuals rescued and the USCG 22% The individuals rescued 16% Determined by an Admiralty Court
SAR folks underpaid!
Just getting back to the forum after the holidays... Happy New Year to all! A few late comments here: To the posting that we value and respect life savers... Respect, yes. Value, NO WAY! Take a look at salaries for EMTs, firemen, policemen, etc, as compared to news anchormen, ball players, etc.. How would costs go up if these people were paid for walking voluntarily into the jaws of hell, sometimes to save bozos? Let's please never underestimate the risks these people take, even if we are unwilling to pay them what they are worth. Second, to another comment about the freedom we have to be adventurers... There are no more adventurers - and the story of the balloon race illustrates this quite nicely. Any "around the world" endeavor, be it via windsurfer, balloon, or Yugo, is accomplished with a "support team" of satellite phones, support vans, boats, copters, radios, gps, etc., etc., and don't forget the rafts of clinging media. Lewis and Clark were adventurers. Lindbergh was a modern day adventurer. Every immigrant who left their homes in the 19th century never again to see their families were also adventurers. So...who should pay? Well, I have to say taxpayers, since I see no effective way to do otherwise. Yes, I already pay school taxes though I have no kids, but I AM better off for having educated citizens holding down jobs rather than hoodlums on the streets. I cannot see any benefit from my taxes used to save a pleasure boater, or a skier, but I also think that any kind of court to determine responsibility would cost more than the cost of providing the rescue. So I grudgingly say taxes. P.S. The 1 and only time (so far - knock on wood) that I needed rescuing, I made a large donation after the fact to the non-profit Lake Authority who voluntarily rescued me though it was not their job - thanks again Brian and Nick!)
Just getting back to the forum after the holidays... Happy New Year to all! A few late comments here: To the posting that we value and respect life savers... Respect, yes. Value, NO WAY! Take a look at salaries for EMTs, firemen, policemen, etc, as compared to news anchormen, ball players, etc.. How would costs go up if these people were paid for walking voluntarily into the jaws of hell, sometimes to save bozos? Let's please never underestimate the risks these people take, even if we are unwilling to pay them what they are worth. Second, to another comment about the freedom we have to be adventurers... There are no more adventurers - and the story of the balloon race illustrates this quite nicely. Any "around the world" endeavor, be it via windsurfer, balloon, or Yugo, is accomplished with a "support team" of satellite phones, support vans, boats, copters, radios, gps, etc., etc., and don't forget the rafts of clinging media. Lewis and Clark were adventurers. Lindbergh was a modern day adventurer. Every immigrant who left their homes in the 19th century never again to see their families were also adventurers. So...who should pay? Well, I have to say taxpayers, since I see no effective way to do otherwise. Yes, I already pay school taxes though I have no kids, but I AM better off for having educated citizens holding down jobs rather than hoodlums on the streets. I cannot see any benefit from my taxes used to save a pleasure boater, or a skier, but I also think that any kind of court to determine responsibility would cost more than the cost of providing the rescue. So I grudgingly say taxes. P.S. The 1 and only time (so far - knock on wood) that I needed rescuing, I made a large donation after the fact to the non-profit Lake Authority who voluntarily rescued me though it was not their job - thanks again Brian and Nick!)
Paying for SAR
I served in the USCG in the late seventies, and spent some time in Alaska, in Kodiak and Dutch Harbor. It was not uncommon for fishing vessels to fill their holds, disable their engines, and request assistance from the Coast Guard. As a deterrent the Coast Guard was recovering costs from the fishermen. Needless to say, there was considerable friction between the parties involved. With fuel costs so much higher today, the temptation for such actions must be all the greater. And I can see why legislators would want to get involved. But as a Coastie, I can tell you one and all that we take our duty to protect the boating public most seriously. Semper Paratus is the Coast Guard motto, and we were, and I am sure still are, Always Ready to do our duty. I for one hope that the politicians and lawmakers can find a way to prevent the abuses outlined above while allowing the boating public access to the services of the highly motivated men and women who enlisted to protect them.
I served in the USCG in the late seventies, and spent some time in Alaska, in Kodiak and Dutch Harbor. It was not uncommon for fishing vessels to fill their holds, disable their engines, and request assistance from the Coast Guard. As a deterrent the Coast Guard was recovering costs from the fishermen. Needless to say, there was considerable friction between the parties involved. With fuel costs so much higher today, the temptation for such actions must be all the greater. And I can see why legislators would want to get involved. But as a Coastie, I can tell you one and all that we take our duty to protect the boating public most seriously. Semper Paratus is the Coast Guard motto, and we were, and I am sure still are, Always Ready to do our duty. I for one hope that the politicians and lawmakers can find a way to prevent the abuses outlined above while allowing the boating public access to the services of the highly motivated men and women who enlisted to protect them.
USCG - Exemplary
I have the mis-adventure to be rescued twice by the USCG. Once when dismasted and no power, again when a yacht sank 1000nm out. Boy to see that C-130 fly by! I vote to pay, no I did not, they did not ask. These guys are not only professional but well mannered gentlemen as well, not judging, no disdain, nor arrogant attitudes. I have got to know some of the coasties over the years, and they are in a class all their own, above the military mind. We came into port during a gale once, the runnin lights had somehow been switched off, bout midnight, and we were doing 18 knots to cross into the fairway. Well we were stopped upon entering Port Angelos, and required to hove to. This was close after 9/11, and from their view we DID look suspicious. During the process they treated us fairly and respectfully, but had each of us covered by a man with a holstered but unsnapped 9mm. It all got sorted out, and they helped us find a slip for the night; This was a 50ft Cymbal.
I have the mis-adventure to be rescued twice by the USCG. Once when dismasted and no power, again when a yacht sank 1000nm out. Boy to see that C-130 fly by! I vote to pay, no I did not, they did not ask. These guys are not only professional but well mannered gentlemen as well, not judging, no disdain, nor arrogant attitudes. I have got to know some of the coasties over the years, and they are in a class all their own, above the military mind. We came into port during a gale once, the runnin lights had somehow been switched off, bout midnight, and we were doing 18 knots to cross into the fairway. Well we were stopped upon entering Port Angelos, and required to hove to. This was close after 9/11, and from their view we DID look suspicious. During the process they treated us fairly and respectfully, but had each of us covered by a man with a holstered but unsnapped 9mm. It all got sorted out, and they helped us find a slip for the night; This was a 50ft Cymbal.
Heard a story at a SAR meeting
There was a guy hiking up in the mountains of CA. He got tired and activated his personal locator beacon. The state activated a hundred folks to go find him. He was found almost immediately by a Blackhawk helo and they flew him out leaving his camping gear behind. He was fine and they took him home. Two days later, another signal from a new beacon located a mile down the road from where he was found. It was the same guy with the same gear who wanted a ride back with his gear. They left his gear again, gave him a ride home and sent him a bill for $28k for fuel for the Blackhawk. There were also some pictures shown from the search for the remains of the Columbia shuttle. I was surprised to learn that there were a lot of human remains recovered on the ground. They had a religious ceremony for each body part recovered and there were a lot of parts. There were two searches this weekend in this part of Washington. A crashed airplane at Skagit County Airport and a suicidal hiker. Both victims were found deceased. Another search for a snowboarder last night turned out differently. He was found alive in a half an hour. OOPS, just heard that he was not alive -found in a crevass on Mt Baker.
There was a guy hiking up in the mountains of CA. He got tired and activated his personal locator beacon. The state activated a hundred folks to go find him. He was found almost immediately by a Blackhawk helo and they flew him out leaving his camping gear behind. He was fine and they took him home. Two days later, another signal from a new beacon located a mile down the road from where he was found. It was the same guy with the same gear who wanted a ride back with his gear. They left his gear again, gave him a ride home and sent him a bill for $28k for fuel for the Blackhawk. There were also some pictures shown from the search for the remains of the Columbia shuttle. I was surprised to learn that there were a lot of human remains recovered on the ground. They had a religious ceremony for each body part recovered and there were a lot of parts. There were two searches this weekend in this part of Washington. A crashed airplane at Skagit County Airport and a suicidal hiker. Both victims were found deceased. Another search for a snowboarder last night turned out differently. He was found alive in a half an hour. OOPS, just heard that he was not alive -found in a crevass on Mt Baker.
- Status