Who will pay to rescue these idiots?

[psneeld]

After what I heard the skippers of the crab boats make for one episode of the Deadliest Catch...more than the entire crew of a Coast Guard cutter makes for a 90 day Alaskan patrol...I say let the "entertainers" pay...not necessarily any commercial operation.

As to who says pay or not...I say the USCG or Canadian CG officer in charge of the operation get to say...I was certainly qualified to say...I'm sure most are and wouldn't abuse the code...if so there's always an appeal.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by sec906

I wonder how they calculated that? Don't you wonder why they never report how much money was spent as a result of this rescue above and beyond what would have been spent anyway?

I'd guess this figure is the total cost of all the personnel and equipment with any involvement in the rescue. But what is the incremental cost between this operation versus having all the personnel and equipment sitting idle? What is the incremental cost of this rescue over doing a training exercise SAR?

What is the "real" cost?

For the USCG the cost of most rescues are in the annual operating budget...so most idiots get a free pass.... big operations like a Cuban boat lift or distant foreign land SAR may get a separate appropriation.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You mean if the commercial venture hasn't the cash you leave them die. A sort of nautical wallet biopsy !!!! Ayn rand would be proud of you

Dave

Gee Dave, have a bad day? You're really putting some words in my mouth, rhetorically speaking, that were never there, never thought or imagined anything like that.

Never would I even imply in any way that anyone should be left to die, no matter what sort of idiot they are. Just because I feel someone should be responsible for their actions does not mean I wish them harm, even by inaction. Certainly I do not suffer fools gladly but that's a long way from what you accuse me of.

And the Ayn Rand crack, why don't we pretend you never said that.

[44'cruisingcat]

It could be argued that those on the water for commercial reasons, even "reality" TV, have a more valid reason for being there than those of us who are only there for pleasure.

There are always people complaining about who'll pay when "someone else" (ie someone who doesn't have the same interests as "me") needs rescuing.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Agree. This kind of thing has annoyed me for years. Rescuing a hiker or camper who gets lost or stranded is one thing but to bail out some daredevil who intentionally (and possibly foolishly) puts himself/herself in danger especially for money is another.

if it weren't for "brave men" like these, there'd be no darwin awards ...

[goboatingnow]

I like a society that lets people be idiots and still rescues them and fixes them up aka medical free of charge etc. whether that be suicidal jet skiers , helmet less bikers etc.

PS skip mac yes let's forget the ayn rand quip , she's best forgotten forever

Dave

[Boatguy30]

Living in New Zealand, I have noticed the free fix you up leads to a major de-evolution and people trying to figure out what is the stupidest most dangerous thing they can do and call it a sport. Then the government goes nearly broke trying to maintain ACC.


They even have mandatory motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws!

[nautical62]

About 2 hours after departing Puerto Rico, the coast guard sent out a plane to do circles around us. 12 hours or so later as we approached the D.R. they scrambled a helicopter to do the same. Both were clearly aimed at letting us know big brother was watching.

I'd much rather my tax dollars paid for needed rescue, even the rescue of idiots than be wasted as above.

[Tony B]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Tony,
For you to compare our Founding Fathers, who were the best and brightest of our country's citizens, with corn-brained reality TV "stars" who are being paid for their stunts to satiate the needs of a society of brain dead mushroom heads is patently absurd. It is called a non sequitur in philosophy. To call these goons people with "adventure in their blood" is to call a beaten and abused circus dancing bear a marvel of nature. Good luck, good sailing and if you're looking for heros . . . you won't find them on TV.

This was said tongue-in-cheek as a gross exaggeration. I guess you failed to see any humor in it. The point I was trying to make is that if our founding fathers were a bunch of wimps worrying about risk management when they could have safely stayed in the comforts of their own home. As for being corn-brained? Lets see. our founding fathers decided to put every man, woman and child in the colonies at risk. Half the full time population was for freedom, the other half which they actually did fight at times was for staying with the British. Then there were the British troops that were here and the potential of fighting the entire British Empire. This was crazy and suicidal by any standards. Theoretically, they had no chance at all of surviving. What we think is dumb and unachievable, others don't. I'm not into climbing so I see climbing Mt. McKinley and Everest as pointless. I also see nothing wrong with it if someone else wants to do it. When these climbers get in trouble they are prepared for consequences which can include death. Although they don't count on being rescued at the onset of the climb, many do get rescued and some don't.
Just because you view these reality TV guys as a bunch of dumb-asses does not mean they are not adventurous, brave and bold. I'm also sure that many of them earn more than most of us.
Do you think our founding fathers were a bunch of wimps that never did any hair-brained things in their lifetime?
Wimps rarely amount to anything. As a side note, I will again remind you that I never watch any of those dumb reality shows. Just not my thing.

[David M]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Aren't ships commercial ventures?

edit: I read further and found this has already been asked.

Although commercial, ship operators are not performing high risk stunts where the chance of needing an expensive rescue is high.

[barnakiel]

I think that stunt riders should go fully insured.

I would still insist that a loony adventurer should be free to go.

I think the loony people tend to go prepared and they are very determined and hardly ever ask support.

Stunt riders go for it and when they fail they just press the button.

Different targets, different mindsets, different results.

b.