JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government, are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California
sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week
ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and
soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his
satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers
said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his
leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be
rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government,
are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

I know around here we pay for an ambulance ride, above and beyond the annual
fire/rescue tax we pay. Not sure about a fire.

D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California
sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week
ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and
soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his
satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers
said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his
leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html


And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be
rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government,
are
asked to pay for the screwup.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

I know around here we pay for an ambulance ride, above and beyond the annual
fire/rescue tax we pay. Not sure about a fire.

Paying taxes for emergency services needed to respond to fires and
accidents is one thing. Having to pay for emergency services to rescue
those who purposely put their lives in danger for the sake of a thrill
is another.

I am with Bill on this one. This thrill seeking sailor should have to
pay back any expenses incurred with his rescue.

"JimH" wrote in message
ps.com...

I am with Bill on this one. This thrill seeking sailor should have to
pay back any expenses incurred with his rescue.


We get a lot of that here. Every nut who decides to sail, row, swim or
balloon to England passes in our coastal waters or air space.
Some years it seems like our Seach & Rescue service is saving someone on a
weekly basis.

D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
ups.com...
A very lucky man:


==============
"SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- A Chilean navy search plane has located an
American solo sailor on his disabled yacht off the southern tip of
South America, and a Chilean navy officer said rescuers will probably
reach him early Friday.

A fishing trawler was sailing to rescue the Southern California
sailor,
Ken Barnes, whose round-the-world solo trip was interrupted a week
ago
when his 44-foot ketch hit a storm that broke both its masts and
soaked
Barnes' supplies and food.

Barnes, 47, lost contact with friends when the battery of his
satellite
telephone ran down on Wednesday, but his girlfriend Cathy Chambers
said
he managed another brief call again Thursday morning, saying he was
surviving on Pop Tarts and granola bars. He has a small cut on his
leg,
she said."
==============

Complete story he
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

And who is going to pay for the rescue? Not that he should not be
rescued,
but seems as if like the climbers in Oregon, every time someone gets in
trouble while doing a dangerous endevor, the people, via government,
are
asked to pay for the screwup.
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

I know around here we pay for an ambulance ride, above and beyond the annual
fire/rescue tax we pay. Not sure about a fire.


Most fire/rescue and ambulance services will charge the person using
these services.

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

Fuego

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

Which one is more at fault? The average pleasure boater whose boat
malfunctions because of bad maintenance or because he didn't properly
fill his tank before a long trip? Or the round-the-world sailor with a
well maintained, seaworthy, storm-enduring boat that just got unlucky
in a storm that was heavier than was to be expected?

Risto

Varis wrote:
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

Which one is more at fault? The average pleasure boater whose boat
malfunctions because of bad maintenance or because he didn't properly
fill his tank before a long trip? Or the round-the-world sailor with a
well maintained, seaworthy, storm-enduring boat that just got unlucky
in a storm that was heavier than was to be expected?

Risto

The pleasure boater pays the tab for the tow back to the dock and is
not in the middle of the ocean when needing one.

The sailor did not get unlucky. Such storms should be expected when
attempting to sail around the world.

BTW: The sailors boat was certainly no seaworthy enough to attempt a
round the world passage. ;-)

JimH wrote:

The pleasure boater pays the tab for the tow back to the dock and is

I doubt this guy gets a free tow for his boat...

not in the middle of the ocean when needing one.

Probably not. At least, hopefully not :-)

The sailor did not get unlucky. Such storms should be expected when
attempting to sail around the world.

BTW: The sailors boat was certainly no seaworthy enough to attempt a
round the world passage. ;-)

You're going a bit easy on the details here :-) How many beauforts was
that particular storm? Did you have a chance to inspect his boat
personally?

How about all the boats that sail around the world or whereever on the
oceans for months, without any need for emergency help?

Risto