Boating idiots

[dmccarty]

Measles and chicken pox are both viral illnesses, not bacterial. Antibiotics won't affect them at all. Basically, they only treatment for most viral illnesses is supporting care to manage the side effects (temperature, dehydration, aches and pains) while the body's natural defenses take care of the pathogen.

Yeppers but The Reports said the PJ's gave antibiotics and the kid improved yet the symptoms in The Reports sound like measles or chicken pox. :confused3: The child could have had a secondary infection... :confused3:

Until the couple talk about what really happened we can only guess.

A similar situation happened last month and until the captain got to port, the whole story was not known.

Supposedly, the USN allowed them to take a few things off their boat before she was scuttled and one of the last things the Captain/Owner was able to take off his boat was it's wheel. The picture is heart breaking if one understands its meaning. For some reason, I can't post the photo...

There seems to be three broad groups of people who live on small boats. One group is retired people who have a bit of money and time. Not as much money as one would think either though some are certainly wealthy. Many sell their house and move on to a boat to cruise around. The other demographic is young people who have scraped enough money together to get a boat and go travel. They have to work here and there to provide funds and they certainly are not rich. The third group is just surviving living on a boat. It can be cheap but I think these people minimize boat work and certainly cannot safely travel across long passages.. They certainly do not have money.

The older group only has 10, maybe 20, years before they age out and have to sell the boat. Hopefully, by the time they are no longer able to be on the boat due to health and age issues, they have been able to live the dream...

Later,
Dan

 

[k0ua]

Well Dan, as usual, you explain things in a calm logical manner, and cut through an "ocean" of misinformation. Good post's.

 

[Cat_Driver]

So WHY does my tax dollars need to pay for someone having STUPID FUN? In my area we have knuckle heads that take a mountain hike with no water in 120 temps and then wonder why they need to be air evaced after they pass out. Or the same knuckle heads that go climbing in a winter storm and get stuck on a snowy mountain at 12K ft. Yes these people a knuckle heads also, taking small children on a tiny boat around the world.
You want to play stupid then buy stupid insurance for 250K payable to the rescue people. Another thing, most rescue people are volunteers, who risk their lives, leave their family, go hungry, walk for miles, sleep in the rain etc. ALL so knuckle heads can have some fun. Get the insurance policy and pay these "volunteers" to do what they do.

I understand rescuing the fisherman doing his job and needing the Coast Guard, or the typical auto crash rescue, plane crash, etc. but why should anyone PAY so others can PLAY stupidly in dangerous situation. You wanna play - then pay.

 

[Pixguy]

They are starting to charge for rescuing hikers around here that get lost or stuck in inclement weather in the White Mtns. if they feel it was a situation that could be avoided. Too many people go hiking ill-prepared and use their cell phone to call for help when they get in trouble. They charge to haul snowmobiles and cars out of lakes that have fallen through the ice. If people had used good sense, their vehicle wouldn't be in the lake.

The issue isn't should the family have been helped, of course we should help people in need. The issue is, is there a penalty for unnecessarily putting oneself in a position to need help?

If enough small boats and people were put on the water to cross the Pacific, to be equivalent to the people-miles traveled on the freeway, we would need a much larger Coast Guard.

Totally agree Dave. Baby with :boat:= :donkey:

 

[dave1949]

Loren, Dan and others, make some good points but I am not totally sold on them.

Part of the issue is one of scale. I would guess that there are so few recreational boaters in need of actual rescue (not a tow by a commercial outfit) that the issue of what it costs flies under the radar. If the rate of occurrence and corresponding costs were to increase, I don't think it would go unnoticed or just written off as "stuff happens." That being the case, it is just as wrong for one boat to be at avoidable risk as it is for 1000.

Another issue is mission and budget. Did a smuggler of drugs or illegal immigrants complete their mission because the CG or USN was pulled off their primary mission rendering aid? I'm sure the CG and USN budgets, boats and manpower levels are stretched already. How often can they be taken off their primary missions, and at what financial and mission effectiveness cost, has to be weighed against the judgement of those being rescued.

Lastly, there is a cultural element to this. Men go down to the sea in ships. Adventuresome boating family rescued by heroic actions saving life of baby. It all has a certain romantic appeal to us, I get that. I also know there are others among us in dire need of "rescue" but they aren't on the ocean, or Hollywood material so to speak. This is a selective donning of the rose colored glasses in my mind. That bothers me somewhat that we seem unable or unwilling to equally apply common principles. That was the thought behind the question, "How big does the boat need to be to get a pass?" in my first post.

For the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, fast forward 50 years to people making recreational space journeys. Should NASA mount a billion dollar rescue effort under similar circumstances? It will happen someday.

I think there should be a penalty. I don't know how large, but even a token penalty says something. One basic question should be, does the judgement of the parents rise to the level of child negligence? That's beyond my pay grade, but it ought to be considered at least.

 

[daugen]

So WHY does my tax dollars need to pay for someone having STUPID FUN?

because on land we have the emergency responder attitude of fire and rescue that no matter how stupid or unlucky someone is, they will do their best to save
you. On sea, the Coast Guard/Navy operates much the same way. Save folk, sort it out later. And that's fine and good.
A 36 foot heavy monohull sailboat can certainly transnavigate the Pacific Ocean safely. It's been done hundreds if not thousands of times.

It was just my protective instinct kicking in when I saw that baby on board. Hey, you don't want to give your child vaccines? fine, assuming that is legal.
You want your child to eat beansprouts and tofu? fine. probably healthier than commercial food.
You want to take your child in a small boat across the ocean? Fine, but how about when they are four, or able to understand and act on instructions.
Can't you take your one year old up the coast? Particularly since little kids get sick a lot?

We live in the land of the free and boy do things like this show us how good we have it.
And if I could I would retitle this thread Was This Captain Wise?
calling someone an idiot without knowing the facts is, well, idiotic.

 

[Loren49]

My cousin and her husband were cruising the Scandinavian Coast a number of years ago on a large (many masted) sailing vessel. (they were paying passengers who participated in sailing the vessel) He developed appendicitis and was helicoptered to a hospital. Basically all expenses covered by the country. As a tourist there he was covered as a citizen. Not a bad way to treat visitors. Now maybe we can do the same for our own.

Boaters should have the freedom to make these decisions. Many resources are expended to pick up the pieces after alcohol and speed related boat and car accidents. The percent that goes to offshore sailors is not out of line (I made up that and will stand corrected if data shows the need:thumbsup

Kids at childcare from 2 months age until school age because both parents chose to work (or a lifestyle that dictates that) could be considered putting children at risk. Compare that to spending 24 hrs per day in close contact while finding adventure and wonder.

A description of sailing....nearly continuous boredom interspersed with momentsts of shear terror.

With the right planning and timing many long passage makers find lots more boring or at least quiet, easy, awesome, wondrous, safe adventure.

Here's a couple who started on a lightweight 25 ft boat....eventually 2 children and a 33 ft boat. They spent 7 years and now live near my son in Maine.
http://setsail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/itl_bio.pdf
This book is a great read!
http://store.setsail.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=13

Loren

 

[Midniteoyl]

I haven't seen a picture of the sail boat, but a 36 foot boat would be quite adequate if designed for serious sailing (meaning, among other things, a strong hull, small ports (windows) a small cockpit, and robust rigging, etc) and is outfitted with solid heavy weather gear. If you read about folks who have done extensive world sailing, you'll know what I mean.
However, I'm not so sure about the wisdom of taking a one year old either...

Update: Just looked at the type of boat...a Hans Christian 36 with a cutter rig. Definitely a well founded sail boat for off shore or round the world cruising.
HANS CHRISTIAN 36 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Nice boat.. Looks up to the task.

 

[Midniteoyl]

As to the cost - how much more money was spent because of this rescue. Was any new equipment needed and did this rescue take the place of some other training. Government money is regularly spent for people who chose to live in high risk areas. ex. wildfires. coast home flooding, living below sea level or on sand spits.



Loren

There wasnt any more money spent.. I hate when people bring that up, forgetting that National Guard (on duty) and USCG personnel are paid regardless if they are training, rescuing, or sitting on the @sses. And the fuel is already paid for. If it wasnt used for this rescue, it would have been spent on training for a rescue, so its a wash.

 

[Loren49]

There wasnt any more money spent.. I hate when people bring that up, forgetting that National Guard (on duty) and USCG personnel are paid regardless if they are training, rescuing, or sitting on the @sses. And the fuel is already paid for. If it wasnt used for this rescue, it would have been spent on training for a rescue, so its a wash.

We met a retired CG instructor who for a number of years did rescue missions. They at times get into some pretty nasty weather (probably too nice a description) due to people being stupid or really unlucky. All people caught in terrible weather aren't stupid. I assume when bad weather isn't the issue that most of the rescues aren't much different than practice.

Loren