trawlers@lists.trawlering.com

TRAWLERS & TRAWLERING LIST

View all threads

risk insurance and bottom paint

S
sealubber7@aol.com
Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:09 PM

Larry, don't we (most of us) reduce much of the rescue expenses by carrying
insurance with Towboat US and SeaTow ?It has to cut into the expenses some by
not having to respond unless there is imminent danger to life or property and
referring the "rescue" to a commercial provider.

I'm of the impression that the red pepper in bottom paint has been tried and
was successful. I've been told that the EPA does not allow it do to some
damage it may do to the marine environment ( please correct me if this is
wrong) and I've been told that the Navy does use it. (again correct me if this
is wrong)

Larry, don't we (most of us) reduce much of the rescue expenses by carrying insurance with Towboat US and SeaTow ?It has to cut into the expenses some by not having to respond unless there is imminent danger to life or property and referring the "rescue" to a commercial provider. I'm of the impression that the red pepper in bottom paint has been tried and was successful. I've been told that the EPA does not allow it do to some damage it may do to the marine environment ( please correct me if this is wrong) and I've been told that the Navy does use it. (again correct me if this is wrong)
HQ
Henry Quigley
Tue, Dec 8, 2009 4:21 PM

----- Original Message ----

Larry, don't we (most of us) reduce much of the rescue expenses by carrying
insurance with Towboat US and SeaTow ?It has to cut into the expenses some by
not having to respond unless there is imminent danger to life or property and
referring the "rescue" to a commercial provider.

Response:

That may help some but the number of rescue missions by the USCG is still high, occuring on a daily basis. In the past five years the number of cases has dropped from over 100 per day to around 75 per day; that is for the whole United States.

Henry
M/Y Mary M
North Pacific 43

----- Original Message ---- Larry, don't we (most of us) reduce much of the rescue expenses by carrying insurance with Towboat US and SeaTow ?It has to cut into the expenses some by not having to respond unless there is imminent danger to life or property and referring the "rescue" to a commercial provider. Response: That may help some but the number of rescue missions by the USCG is still high, occuring on a daily basis. In the past five years the number of cases has dropped from over 100 per day to around 75 per day; that is for the whole United States. Henry M/Y Mary M North Pacific 43
SH
Scott H.E. Welch
Tue, Dec 8, 2009 4:50 PM

Henry Quigley hqnp43@yahoo.com writes:

That may help some but the number of rescue missions by the USCG is still
high, occuring on a daily basis. In the past five years the number of cases
has dropped from over 100 per day to around 75 per day; that is for the
whole United States.

It's worthwhile noting that New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die") has
implemented a policy charging people for the cost of their rescue (see
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/29/national/main5451330.shtml for an
example).

This might sound extreme, but if we really are going to "Live Free" then we
need to be ready to face the consequences, and that means being prepared to
pay for our own stupidity.

The flip side is that if we as a society are going to assume the burden of
rescues, then we do have a legitimate argument to take prudent actions to
reduce those same costs. Hence things like mandatory boater licensing, which
has been in force in Canada for about a decade (see
http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/obs/paperwork/paperwork_operator.htm
for details). Believe it or not, the sky has NOT fallen.

(Disclaimer: I'm originally from New Hampshire, but now I'm Canadian. So I
get an earful of both sides of these arguments!)

Scott Welch

"Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn
out." - John Wooden

Henry Quigley <hqnp43@yahoo.com> writes: >That may help some but the number of rescue missions by the USCG is still >high, occuring on a daily basis. In the past five years the number of cases >has dropped from over 100 per day to around 75 per day; that is for the >whole United States. It's worthwhile noting that New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die") has implemented a policy charging people for the cost of their rescue (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/29/national/main5451330.shtml for an example). This might sound extreme, but if we really are going to "Live Free" then we need to be ready to face the consequences, and that means being prepared to pay for our own stupidity. The flip side is that if we as a society are going to assume the burden of rescues, then we do have a legitimate argument to take prudent actions to reduce those same costs. Hence things like mandatory boater licensing, which has been in force in Canada for about a decade (see http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/debs/obs/paperwork/paperwork_operator.htm for details). Believe it or not, the sky has NOT fallen. (Disclaimer: I'm originally from New Hampshire, but now I'm Canadian. So I get an earful of both sides of these arguments!) Scott Welch "Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out." - John Wooden