In a message dated 3/26/2004 12:29:19 PM Central Standard Time, joe@jre.com
writes:
The psychological problem Mike alludes to is the same as we have with
the police department IMO.  I agree that it is a problem.  If folks feel
intimidated or are put-off by the USCG they will be reluctant to call
for help (for example).

Joe, Mike, others, I can tell you are sincere about this but I'd like to add
another perspective.  Likely not a popular one.

I always stand ready to help if I can.  However, I have never believed that
I, you, the USCG or anyone else has a duty to  save people from themselves.
Which is to say that if they don't want to call for help, abandon their boat or
whatever I say so be it.  If they choose to die because of false pride,
ignorance or anyother reason fine with me.

chuck
TOAD HALL

-----Original Message-----
From: trawler-world-list-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawler-world-list-bounces@lists.samurai.com]On Behalf Of
SVWindigo@aol.com

Joe, Mike, others, I can tell you are sincere about this but I'd like to add
another perspective.  Likely not a popular one.

I always stand ready to help if I can.  However, I have never believed that
I, you, the USCG or anyone else has a duty to  save people from themselves.
Which is to say that if they don't want to call for help, abandon their boat
or
whatever I say so be it.  If they choose to die because of false pride,
ignorance or anyother reason fine with me.

chuck
TOAD HALL

When I first read this, Chuck, I thought it pretty harsh, but thinking about
it a while my feelings aren't that different.  Like most States Indiana has
seatbelt laws, but unlike most States they don't require motorcycle helmets
for adults.  They did, but rescinded it under presser from motorcyclists.
They know the risks; they pay the consequences.

If someone CHOOSES not to call for help, and/or CHOOSES not to abandon their
boat, then the principle would seem to be the same.  They know they are
taking a risk; they pay the consequences.  That being said, I have to
disagree about the Coast Guard, other first responders, yours, my
responsibility or duty to help.  You know this or you would not have begun
your paragraph with "I always stand ready to help if I can."  That is
exactly right.  It is our duty to help if we can--even if they are stupid.
To let people die when they could've been helped is just something most
people couldn't do, and I suspect that would include you.

Frank

That's why we have the "Darwin" awards!

You have to look at it from a balance perspective too.  Immortal 20
somethings without motorcycle helmets are the best organ donors.

My dilemma is the following: if someone is in mortal danger and I can help,
I make the offer.  If it's refused, I respect the right of that person to
make the decision, but what do we do when he makes the decision for someone
else like a wife and kids for example?

Fortunately, I've never experienced this scenario and I'm not looking
forward to it...

                                      Regards....

Phil Rosch
Old Harbor Consulting
M/V Curmudgeon MT-44TC
Currently moored in Vero Beach, FL

Toad and Frank,

Yours is no doubt an unpopular sentiment with many, but I too (despite being
a 30 year member of the USCGAux) have frequently reached the same
conclusion.  Some refer to it as the "thinning of the herd" syndrome, and
indeed many people seem hell-bent on injuring their boats, their families
and themselves.  Let me share with you a current development here in San
Francisco and in many other places where wind-surfers and kite-surfers
participate in their sport.

As you know, a dozen years ago the Coast Guard more narrowly defined the
types of cases they would consider "emergent" (bureaucratic-speak for
emergency) in response from protests from the salver community.  Formerly
the Coast Guard would respond to most any case where it could be determined
that the safety of life or loss of property were likely to occur.  After the
new policy, preference in "non-emergent" cases would be given to salvers
(where they exist) and the Coast Guard would only "follow" the case via
radio and/or cell-phone.

Generally speaking the policy has had a positive effect on the quality and
state of preparedness seen on most of today's boat plying local waters.
Recognizing that if they fail to check fuel and oil levels, attempt to use a
starting battery well beyond its years or pull other shenanigans likely to
require assistance out on the water, most of today's mariners think twice
before getting underway; due in large part to the hefty bill they will need
to pay a salver for running out of fuel, having a dead battery, etc.  That's
fine with me, and as I said, is likely behind the drop in the Coast Guard's
boating response statistics.

Now enter the wind- and kite-surfers.  In my view, the Coast Guard has yet
to come to grips with a realistic definition of what constitutes "emergency"
or "non-emergency" situations with regard to wind-powered surfboards.
Evidently the basic operating strategy of wind- and kite-surfers is that "if
you don't break your gear or your bone, you're not doing it right"!  I say
this because on weekends in popular local wind-surfing launch sites like the
Marina Green off San Francisco, while out on Coast Guard Auxiliary safety
patrols, we watch them hurl themselves and their craft into the bay without
any consideration given to the state of tide, current or wind.  Following
the "you're not doing it right if you don't break something" mantra, they
persist in wake-jumping the ferrys' wakes and crossing in front of pleasure
and commercial craft of all sizes.  Then when the inevitable happens and
they break their mast or arm, they expect the captain of whatever craft
they've chosen to sail in front of, to perform emergency stop maneuvers to
avoid running them down.

But more importantly, the Coast Guard still persist in treating these
incidents as equivalent to your holing your hull and taking on enough water
to sink, or similar calamities, and thus dispatches Auxiliary or active duty
vessels to render assistance to these wind-surfers who are out there with
the intention of breaking a bone or their craft!  The result is every
weekend in the late afternoon or early evening hours when the winds are
howling, a half dozen or more wind-surfers will have their questionable
seamanship skills rewarded with valet-like rescues from the Coast Guard,
while Joe Boater whose stereo or refrigerator drained the engine-starting
battery is left to the whims and price-gouging of the commercial salver
community.

I fail to see a reasonable rationale for the Coast Guard's refusing to
render assistance to Joe Boater when his $100,000 sportsfisherman suffers
engine failure, while they rush off to pluck clueless wind-surfers out of
the situations they chose to enter!  They would appear to be a perfect
target for the "thinning of the herd" crowd, by being held accountable for
their seamanship, or lack of it, and the unreasonable proportion of CG
rescue responses their "hobby" extracts from search and rescue crews.

One man's opinion,
Bob Peterson

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Bales
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:57 AM
To: trawler-world-list@lists.samurai.com
Subject: TWL: Duty to Save (was Abandon Ship)

Joe, Mike, others, I can tell you are sincere about this but I'd like to add
another perspective.  Likely not a popular one.

I always stand ready to help if I can.  However, I have never believed that
I, you, the USCG or anyone else has a duty to  save people from themselves.
Which is to say that if they don't want to call for help, abandon their boat
or whatever I say so be it.  If they choose to die because of false pride,
ignorance or anyother reason fine with me.

chuck
TOAD HALL

When I first read this, Chuck, I thought it pretty harsh, but thinking about
it a while my feelings aren't that different.  Like most States Indiana has
seatbelt laws, but unlike most States they don't require motorcycle helmets
for adults.  They did, but rescinded it under presser from motorcyclists.
They know the risks; they pay the consequences.

If someone CHOOSES not to call for help, and/or CHOOSES not to abandon their
boat, then the principle would seem to be the same.  They know they are
taking a risk; they pay the consequences.  That being said, I have to
disagree about the Coast Guard, other first responders, yours, my
responsibility or duty to help.  You know this or you would not have begun
your paragraph with "I always stand ready to help if I can."  That is
exactly right.  It is our duty to help if we can--even if they are stupid.
To let people die when they could've been helped is just something most
people couldn't do, and I suspect that would include you.

Frank
_