NZ is a socialized country and there are laws for EVERYTHING... And where there is not a law, whatever someone in authority says, goes... Friend of mine, a Michigan boy and typical ugly american, married a NZ girl and lives there... One time coming back from a trip to Japan they found that he had been declared Persona Non Grata by the Prime minister after Doug had exercised his US Constitutional Rights to publically criticize said PM... They refused to let him re-enter the country... He had to go back to Japan and get the US Embassy to sweet talk the PM into removing the wedgie from his knickers... Since then, Doug says he has no opinions on anything involving NZ... This is, of course, where the current administration here, is taking us... denny / k8do

kudos On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Dennis OConnor <ad4hk2004@yahoo.com> wrote: > NZ is a socialized country and there are laws for EVERYTHING... And where > there is not a law, whatever someone in authority says, goes... > Friend of mine, a Michigan boy and typical ugly american, married a NZ girl > and lives there... One time coming back from a trip to Japan they found > that > he had been declared Persona Non Grata by the Prime minister after Doug had > exercised his US Constitutional Rights to publically criticize said PM... > They refused to let him re-enter the country... He had to go back to Japan > and > get the US Embassy to sweet talk the PM into removing the wedgie from his > knickers... Since then, Doug says he has no opinions on anything involving > NZ... > > This is, of course, where the current administration here, is taking us... > denny / k8do > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power > > To unsubscribe send email to > passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word > UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message. > > Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World > Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.

First of all, the USCG has stopped some single-handed voyages - they have that authority. I vaguely recall one case in San Diego which was appealed to the courts. Yesterday, a Netherlands court prevented a young woman from departing on a solo voyage. That court considered the experience of the sailor. This was on the BBC World News. I understand the Coast Guard not wanting to have to rescue a poorly found boat, but I'm not happy about the courts or the CG passing judgment on the qualifications of a given sailor. Ron Rogers

The recent case of the courst stopping a 13 year old girl from embarking on a round the world sail as a stunt to capture the record of being the youngest person to sail solo around the world raises some serious issues for all cruisers. Does a state have the right to limit its liabilities for SAR efforts if the actions of one or more people place them at risk and requires the intervention of SAR assets and attendant expenditure. Does the state have the obligation to save people from their own folly or lack of judgement and skills. When the media gets wind of some disaster at sea requiring the rescue of boats and their crews by the nearest SAR assets, there is always a great outpouring of emotinal energy exhorting the utmost effort to rescue these poor people adrift at sea and in danger of drowning. There would be a great outcry if the authority in question said "sorry but we already spent all the money available". But look at it from the other side. Sometimes these people are not even citizens of the country that is expected to rescue them. Suggestions have been made to make the people being rescued responsibel for the costs involved. These suggestions have invariably been denounced by the press and people generally. If people are to have the freedom to risk their own lives should they not also bear the responsibility to pay for their own action even if this incurs great expense? If the state is not allowed to limit its liability then it follows they should have the right to limit the possibility of such expenses being necessary. In other words a prudent prevention program. Arild

The idea of "pay for rescue" would cause some people to delay asking for help when they really needed it. Bad idea. However, the premise underlying all of this is that people are largely prudent, but sometimes the weather or their boat or their health goes downhill in unexpected fashion and overwhelms them. I believe the state, when there is evidence of gross imprudence, should be able intervene before a rescue is required. But this largely applies to advertised and promoted stunts (like the 13 year old girl) where they have visibility to the event. Clearly, some people go to sea in a boat that doesn't belong there without advertising the event. Can't help that, but the state can and should intervene when we're talking folly. Of course, that begs the question of where the line is drawn. Even the casual student of governments will deduce that rules and laws and bureaucracy grow in proportion to the number of incidents they are designed to protect us from. If its an occasional idiot, then nobody is going to create a huge bureaucracy to deal with it. But if this became a common event, it would inevitably lead to licensing and permits and who knows what else. Classic example... car seats for children. Long after they were available, many parents refused to buy them or use them. I think there were even financial incentives at the beginning to help parents buy them. Rumors abounded that claimed they were actually injurious (a rare case of a kid being trapped in a burning car). But many didn't, and kids were getting needlessly massacred on the highways. The government finally put in place laws and enforcement to ensure parents were protecting their kid Same story for seat belts for adults. I am fairly confident that if 99% of people had been prudent and ensured they and their kids were properly secured and protected as soon as the technology was available, then we wouldn't have laws mandating it. In the end, its our responsibility as citizens and mariners to act prudently so that the government won't have to protect us from ourselves. Anyway, my two cents. John Marshall On Aug 28, 2009, at 10:29 AM, <2elnav@netbistro.com> wrote: > The recent case of the courst stopping a 13 year old girl from > embarking on a round the world sail as a stunt to capture the > record of being the youngest person to sail solo around the world > raises some serious issues for all cruisers. > > Does a state have the right to limit its liabilities for SAR > efforts if the actions of one or more people place them at risk > and requires the intervention of SAR assets and attendant > expenditure. > > Does the state have the obligation to save people from their own > folly or lack of judgement and skills. > > When the media gets wind of some disaster at sea requiring the > rescue of boats and their crews by the nearest SAR assets, there > is always a great outpouring of emotinal energy exhorting the > utmost effort to rescue these poor people adrift at sea and in > danger of drowning. > > There would be a great outcry if the authority in question said > "sorry but we already spent all the money available". > > But look at it from the other side. Sometimes these people are > not even citizens of the country that is expected to rescue them. > Suggestions have been made to make the people being rescued > responsibel for the costs involved. These suggestions have > invariably been denounced by the press and people generally. > > If people are to have the freedom to risk their own lives should > they not also bear the responsibility to pay for their own action > even if this incurs great expense? > > If the state is not allowed to limit its liability then it follows > they should have the right to limit the possibility of such > expenses being necessary. In other words a prudent prevention > program. > > Arild _______________________________________________ > http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/passagemaking-under-power > > To unsubscribe send email to > passagemaking-under-power-request@lists.samurai.com with the word > UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message. > > Passagemaking Under Power and PUP are trademarks of Water World > Productions, formerly known as Trawler World Productions.

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Marshall" <johnamar1101@gmail.com> > I believe the state, when there is evidence of gross imprudence, should > be able intervene before a rescue is required. > > But this largely applies to advertised and promoted stunts (like the 13 > year old girl) where they have visibility to the event. >>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > Of course, that begs the question of where the line is drawn. Someone else posted a comments concerning the 17 year old that recently circumnavigated. The comment was an observation that much of the motivation apparently came from 'dad' who might have been living his own drream through his son. HMmmm? The very fact the voyage was intended to make a grab for a Guiness book record of sorts says much. The event is hyped with help from the media. In my opinion this is precisely the wrong motive. Robin Graham and Tania Abie left pretty much without any fanfare. Robin less so than Tanie. I recall reading about her after she took off but can't remember if ther was any pre start announcement. And there is a wold of difference in maturity between a 13 year old and an 18 year old, not to mention physical strenght etc. I concur that there is a strong suggestion of imprudence in the case of the 13 year old. Being a media publisized event you can bet on there being media coveage as this girl sails the roaring forties. If a mishap should occur then who is going to bear the cost of SAR. AU and NZ are the most likely. Surely they are interested stake holders. Or is it acceptable to consider them merely support facilities with deep deep pockets, with no say in the matter? For years I sailed single handed without so much as a radio on board. People were agast and roundly condemned me for being irresponsible. Why? I had no family. I was an only chile orphaned at an early age. I figured if I was stupid enough to get myself into a jackpot that I could not extricate myself from, then too bad! My fault, my loss. No one would mourn my passing. so why bother to get total strangers involved and possibly put them at risk as well? But then again I wasn't out to set a record nor garner media coverage to atrract sponsorship. I just loved sailing. Arild