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

Varis wrote:
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

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

JimH wrote:

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

But this would apply to all boaters...

Risto

Varis wrote:
JimH wrote:

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

But this would apply to all boaters...

Risto


If the trip is dangerous and is being made to fulfill some thrill
seeker desire then I agree.

"Varis" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

But this would apply to all boaters...

Risto


And most cases the boater has to pay for the tow, etc.

JimH wrote:
Varis wrote:
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

The bottom line: He put himself in harms way. His boat failed him.
Extraordinary resources were spent saving him. He should therefore
foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

Yeah, if he'd have just layed on his couch thinking of boating instead
of actually doing it he would have been much better off. Of course,
being a couch potato, he's putting himself in harms way via a heart
attack waiting to happen.....