Larry wrote:



IN THEIR 70'S?! COME ON! How stupid is that, offshore 200 miles with NO
YOUNG, STRONG BACKS ABOARD?!!

As long as rich stupids like these are buying boats, I still say
LICENSING should be mandatory. You want to sail...fine. You take the
course, TAKE THE PHYSICAL TO SEE IF YOU REALLY BELONG OUT THERE (no
matter what YOU think), then, if you pass all the REQUIREMENTS....then,
we issue you a LICENSE, we can revoke when you are too old, to PREVENT
YOU from endangering the lives of young rescue swimmers, helo crews and
boat crews just because you are too stupid and pig headed to see you are
too old to go "out there" without enough MUSCLE and ENDURANCE for that
worst case scenario you should be REQUIRED to be prepared for.

NOONE IN THEIR 70'S NEED APPLY! They should be PASSENGERS of ABLE
SEAMEN!


Larry

Hi Larry,

I know this is kind of a late reply, but I had to
let myself cool down for a few days to think about
what I really wanted to say here.

When I was 34 I was playing competitive
racquetball at the YMCA twice a week with a bunch
of guys I worked with. To give you an idea of the
level of play, our group included the 1st _and_
2nd place winners of the Austin TX open
racquetball tournament, and a couple of other
players who placed in the top ten. On any given
day, there were five or six of us who could give
the top two a run for their money.

There was one fellow who was 70 years old that
year who use to come and play with us regularly,
and he was quite competitive. He beat me quite a
few times, and he also would beat the top two
players sometimes. My point is that age is a poor
indicator of strength or fitness. I've seen
plenty of 18 year olds that would have had a heart
attack if they'd try to keep up with this guy, and
he would have beat them at arm wrestling also.

BTW, although that big Amel 54' may take a lot of
muscle to handle the sheets, there are plenty of
boats that do not. Hell, there are even boats
with (gasp) power winches, and power capstans.

Regarding the cost of rescues, and the risk to
rescue crews: Those resources are fixed cost, and
we taxpayers pay for them whether they are used or
not. If there are no real rescues, the crews have
to fly practice ones to stay proficient. I have
an aquaintance who is a USCG rescue swimmer, and
they _love_ to go out on real rescues. It breaks
up the boredom, and makes them feel like they are
doing something worthwhile.

What they do looks dangerous, but they are trained
and equipped for it. The USCG doesn't commit to a
rescue if they believe that the conditions are
dangerous for their crews and equipment. Of
course, what looks dangerous to us is routine for
them.

With your avowed distrust of the US government,
why would you want to give them more power to run
our lives than they've already got?

I say government should stay out of peoples lives
unless there is a compelling reason not to. I'm
really opposed to the idea that government should
become our mommies and save us from ourselves.

rant mode off

Sorry... I feel much better now ;-)

Don W.