Two friends of mine, fairly experienced kayakers both, were rescued this week off the coast of Alaska. God bless the USCG! Link to video footage http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=624321 Josh Teitelbaum Terra Santa Kayak Expeditions Herzliya, Israel -------------------- Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum Senior Research Fellow Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies Tel Aviv University www.dayan.org/research.htm#JOSHUA Visiting Fellow Stanford University Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law & Hoover Institution cddrl.stanford.edu/people/joshuateitelbaum www.hoover.org/bios/Joshua_Teitelbaum.html Principal Research Associate Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya Editor, Political Liberalization in the Persian Gulf (Columbia University Press, 2009) *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
It would be interesting to know why they called for a rescue. The conditions don't look particularly bad (rare white caps), the paddlers are upright in their boats. They appear to have their paddles. They are safely rafted up, appear to be dressed for immersion. It looks like they should have been able to save themselves, but we don't know the whole circumstances. More information would be useful. A lot of credit should go to the fishing vessel that took time out of earning a living to save someone's vacation. Nick On Aug 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Joshua Teitelbaum wrote: > Two friends of mine, fairly experienced kayakers both, were rescued > this week off the coast of Alaska. God bless the USCG! > > Link to video footage > > http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=624321 > > > Josh Teitelbaum Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 54 South Rd Groton, CT 06340 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
They were several miles offshore. Conditions were quite bad, with lots of wind. The video is deceiving in this respect. I assume they could not have landed on shore because the surf was huge. Obviously, they should not have put to sea in these conditions. Apparently they also lost some equipment (paddles?), but that will become clearer later. They told us that conditions were bad enough that each one capsized. One rolled and the other had to be put back in his kayak. They are fairly experienced guys. Gadi has done BCU 5 star training twice in Wales, and has done an expedition on the west coast of Ireland. Albert is a very strong paddler, although less experienced than Gadi. But they were in over their heads. It in unclear why they put to sea, but I think it was -- nearly fatal -- impatience. It is clear that on this expedition they were in over their heads. They were rescued about 2.5 hours after activating their PLB. They also were in contact via VHF. They were in good health, and declined a helicopter rescue in order to save their kayaks. I believe they were given this option. As for the fishing vessel, they do deserve a lot of credit, although I would say that they took time out of earning a living to save someone's l-i-f-e, not their vacation. BTW, this was referred to by the USCG as a "Good Samaritan" vessel. Is this a certain legal status of a vessel coming to the rescue, or does it simply mean that a crew of good will has decided to lend a helping hand. Josh On 3 Aug 2009, at 16:18, Nick Schade wrote: > It would be interesting to know why they called for a rescue. The > conditions don't look particularly bad (rare white caps), the > paddlers are upright in their boats. They appear to have their > paddles. They are safely rafted up, appear to be dressed for > immersion. It looks like they should have been able to save > themselves, but we don't know the whole circumstances. More > information would be useful. > > A lot of credit should go to the fishing vessel that took time out > of earning a living to save someone's vacation. > Nick > > > On Aug 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Joshua Teitelbaum wrote: > >> Two friends of mine, fairly experienced kayakers both, were rescued >> this week off the coast of Alaska. God bless the USCG! >> >> Link to video footage >> >> http://cgvi.uscg.mil/media/main.php?g2_itemId=624321 >> >> >> Josh Teitelbaum >> Terra Santa Kayak Expeditions >> Herzliya, Israel *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Joshua Teitelbaum wrote: > They were several miles offshore. Conditions were quite bad, with lots > of wind. The video is deceiving in this respect. I assume they could > not have landed on shore because the surf was huge. Obviously, they > should not have put to sea in these conditions. Apparently they also > lost some equipment (paddles?), but that will become clearer later. > They told us that conditions were bad enough that each one capsized. One > rolled and the other had to be put back in his kayak. [snip] > > As for the fishing vessel, they do deserve a lot of credit, although I > would say that they took time out of earning a living to save someone's > l-i-f-e, not their vacation. > > BTW, this was referred to by the USCG as a "Good Samaritan" vessel. Is > this a certain legal status of a vessel coming to the rescue, or does it > simply mean that a crew of good will has decided to lend a helping hand. Josh, that term simply refers to the vessel's role in the rescue: no reimbursement is expected or asked for. However, it almost surely cost them something in the vicinity of $2000 - $10,000 US in lost income/extra fuel to divert and haul your friends to a safe haven. If it were me, I'd write 'em a check for $2000 US and call it good. Cheaper than losing the boats, and a good will gesture to the fishing community, which is hard pressed these days to make a decent living in "my" part of the world. Your friends were fortunate to receive the benefit of aid from the USCG and a commercial fishing vessel. I'm glad they are safe, and await further analysis of how they got into their predicament. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: > > >> BTW, this was referred to by the USCG as a "Good Samaritan" vessel. Is >> this a certain legal status of a vessel coming to the rescue, or does it >> simply mean that a crew of good will has decided to lend a helping hand. >> > > Josh, that term simply refers to the vessel's role in the rescue: no > reimbursement is expected or asked for. The difference between "rescue" and "salvage" is an interesting one; and strewn with pitfalls. If the fishing vessel took the kayaks and the paddlers aboard it would probably be, legally speaking, a salvage operation instead of a straight rescue. The difference depends on the details. The fishing boat will almost certainly be out significant money unless they were at the end of their trip and headed back to offload fish and refuel and only had to detour a few miles to effect the rescue. I agree with Dave to cut them a check for $2k and call it good. They could probably legally impound the kayaks if they wanted. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Dave and Craig: Okay, then do I understand correctly? Basically, a ship must come to the rescue if it can do so safely, but it can legally demand compensation if it so desires. If it does not demand compensation, it is a "good samaritan" type of rescue. It it does, it is a salvage operation. Must they make such a choice and then inform the USCG? Josh On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:12, Craig Jungers wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> > wrote: > >> >> >>> BTW, this was referred to by the USCG as a "Good Samaritan" >>> vessel. Is >>> this a certain legal status of a vessel coming to the rescue, or >>> does it >>> simply mean that a crew of good will has decided to lend a helping >>> hand. >>> >> >> Josh, that term simply refers to the vessel's role in the rescue: no >> reimbursement is expected or asked for. > > > The difference between "rescue" and "salvage" is an interesting one; > and > strewn with pitfalls. If the fishing vessel took the kayaks and the > paddlers > aboard it would probably be, legally speaking, a salvage operation > instead > of a straight rescue. The difference depends on the details. The > fishing > boat will almost certainly be out significant money unless they were > at the > end of their trip and headed back to offload fish and refuel and > only had to > detour a few miles to effect the rescue. I agree with Dave to cut > them a > check for $2k and call it good. They could probably legally impound > the > kayaks if they wanted. > > Craig Jungers *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Joshua Teitelbaum wrote: > Okay, then do I understand correctly? Basically, a ship must come to the > rescue if it can do so safely, but it can legally demand compensation if > it so desires. If it does not demand compensation, it is a "good > samaritan" type of rescue. It it does, it is a salvage operation. Must > they make such a choice and then inform the USCG? Craig is the sea lawyer; I am but a mild mannered chemist. Craig will have a scholarly treatise for us. I'll just give you my gut feeling on what is right. My guess is that "demand compensation" is not the usual deal when lives are at stake. It is not cool to stand at the rail and ask for a VISA card when someone is possibly at risk, sloshing around in the wash below. However, an _abandoned_ vessel is subject to rules regarding salvage. Meaning: a salvager can latch onto your ship and hold it for compensation. If you decide not to cough up the dough, they can sell it (and its contents) and keep the proceeds. In this case, your buddies had not abandoned their vessels, so I don't know what maritime law says. Rewarding the Vigilant's captain and crew is just the right thing to do, in my personal code of ethics. Two thousand bucks is a small price to pay for what the Vigilant did, in my book. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: > > Craig is the sea lawyer; I am but a mild mannered chemist. Craig will have > a scholarly treatise for us. I'll just give you my gut feeling on what is > right. LOL. I don't recall anyone ever referring to my essays as a "scholarly treatise" before. I kinda like it. :P > My guess is that "demand compensation" is not the usual deal when lives are > at stake. It is not cool to stand at the rail and ask for a VISA card when > someone is possibly at risk, sloshing around in the wash below. One does not have to arrange the details before hand, however if there is time it's wise. There is even an internationally accepted form that both parties can sign that determine the terms of the salvage. You can imagine the Captain sitting at his desk worrying about signing the standard form while the storm rages about his ship. However, an _abandoned_ vessel is subject to rules regarding salvage. > Meaning: a salvager can latch onto your ship and hold it for compensation. > If you decide not to cough up the dough, they can sell it (and its > contents) and keep the proceeds. Most people believe that a vessel needs to be abandoned before it can be salvaged. This is not the truth. The fine line between a rescue and a salvage generally has to do with the risk to the vessel, the damage to the vessel, and the risk to the potential salvor. Thirty years ago most people in small boats were rescued by the USCG (at least in the USA) but now it's most often done by a third party (Vessel Assist is the most common) and very often under terms of an insurance policy that determines how much a rescue will cost beforehand (generally around $200). So let's say that your 25-foot cabin cruiser misses the channel and runs up onto a sand bar at medium tide and you call for help. The tide is rising so your boat would be free quickly no matter what and there is no damage so someone just throws you a line and you get towed off, wave "thanks" and tootle off on your way. This was not a salvage operation. But let's tighten up the odds a bit. There is a storm brewing and your boat is now battered by waves on a falling tide on the very same sandbar. The boat is in danger of serious damage if it's left for much longer in that position. In all likelihood this would be determined to be a salvage operation if it came to court. You can see that the devil is in the details. The vessel need not be abandoned (although an abandoned vessel is its own special category) nor does the captain of the vessel need to specifically claim that his vessel is in dire straits. The circumstances of the operation will determine the issue. Mind you, I am not a lawyer and seldom watch television programs portraying lawyers. But I was a merchant marine officer for a long time and it behooves us to become at least familiar with these issues. If the fishing vessel took both the paddlers and their kayaks aboard in bad weather then I'd say they have a good case for a salvage claim in the unlikely event that they chose to do so. Fishermen know that they may be "in extremis" themselves one day and generally do whatever they can to help. Karma and all that. In this case, your buddies had not abandoned their vessels, so I don't know > what maritime law says. Rewarding the Vigilant's captain and crew is just > the right thing to do, in my personal code of ethics. Two thousand bucks is > a small price to pay for what the Vigilant did, in my book. > Yup... in my book too. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers: Most people believe that a vessel needs to be abandoned before it can be salvaged. This is not the truth. The fine line between a rescue and a salvage generally has to do with the risk to the vessel, the damage to the vessel, and the risk to the potential salvor. Does anyone remember the story of Goetz Hanisch, the guy at Rose Harbour in the Queen Charlottes? He told me the tale but I've forgot it after all these years. This online description tells it well: A high-handed Parks Canada warden with a chip on his shoulder and an embarrassing lack of knowledge about salvage law has been branded a malicious liar by a B.C. Supreme Court judge. Renee Wissink's pig-headed determination to get the better of Tassilo Goetz Hanisch, a guide and guest-home operator who lives on the border of a Queen Charlotte Islands park reserve, has left taxpayers on the hook for $77,500 in damages after Hanisch won his lawsuit last week. Wissink hoodwinked an inexperienced RCMP officer into laying a charge of mischief against Hanisch after the guide saved a Parks Canada inflatable Zodiac boat from being destroyed in a huge storm on July 26, 1998. Hanisch has lived in the remote outpost of Rose Harbour, on the southern tip of Moresby Island, for the past 20 years. He and two neighbours are the only year-round residents of what used to be a whaling station built 93 years ago. The three landowners hold title to 68 hectares of land that sits outside the boundary of the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, which was created in 1988. The day of the storm, Hanisch braved 40-knot winds while wading into the ocean to keep the Parks Canada Zodiac from wrecking on rocks in the harbour. He radioed Wissink, who was on board a larger Parks Canada boat also caught in the storm, to let the warden know he had secured the Zodiac in a creek and he could get it back the next day when the tide came in. A few years earlier, Hanisch had salvaged a sinking float plane and knew the law of the seas, which stated he had a claim for salvage coming. Wissink, who had a grudge against Hanisch, called the RCMP in Queen Charlotte City and told them Hanisch was refusing to return the Zodiac -- a lie. When Const. Blake Ward arrived at Rose Harbour the next day, he arrested Hanisch, now 48, on a charge of mischief, relying entirely on Wissink's story and refusing to listen to a word Hanisch was telling him. Ward took Hanisch to jail in Queen Charlotte City, 160 kilometres away and six to nine hours by boat. After a 30-minute interrogation, he released Hanisch and left him on his own, with no money, to find a way back home, which took three days. Twice Hanisch had to make his way to Queen Charlotte for court appearances that proved unnecessary. When the case finally came to trial, the Provincial Court judge threw it out for failing to come even near the threshold for a charge of mischief. Hanisch was finally recognized for his heroism in saving the Zodiac when Parks Canada cut him a $240 cheque in lieu of salvage. He sued Wissink, Blake and the federal government over his needless imprisonment. Ottawa's lawyer at the time clearly erred, too. In their statement of claim, the defendants not only stuck to the ridiculous claim that they were acting properly in arresting Hanisch, but also claimed his conduct in the matter "was reprehensible, criminal, illegal, immoral and disgraceful." Hanisch's lawyer, Dan Burnett, demanded a retraction, but none was made. At the end of the five-day trial in Vancouver last month, lawyer Jack Wright, who conducted the defence, apologized to Hanisch. Justice Bruce Harvey awarded Hanisch damages of $77,500 -- $50,000 of which was awarded as punitive damages for the high-handed conduct of Wissink and Ward. The Rose Harbor guide/guest home operator/musician said he was "surprised" and "thrilled" with the ruling. "I'm pleased," Hanisch said yesterday in a phone interview from his home on remote Moresby Island. "I'm surprised as to how high the award is. I think it is a very good thing. It was not OK what they did." Hanisch said he's not certain what he'll do with his award, but suggested that since he saved a Parks Canada vessel, he might return the money to the sea. "I'm not certain, but I think that since I saved Parks Canada a vessel originally, it's going to go towards a vessel of mine." An emerging guitarist, he also might use it to bolster his musical career. He's got a CD coming out next week. The court's decision is also a good story: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/04/05/2004BCCA0539.htm *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:27 AM, James <jimtibensky_at_fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Does anyone remember the story of Goetz Hanisch, the guy at Rose Harbour > in the Queen Charlottes? He told me the tale but I've forgot it after > all these years. This online description tells it well: > > That is an amazing story! Not the least because everyone recognized the high-handed behavior of the "peace officers" involved. Most of the time, in my experience, they prevail regardless. I expect that the officers involved counted on using their positions - and false reports - to protect them. My respect for Canadian justice went up quite a few notches after reading the appellate record. Thanks for posting this. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
James wrote: > Craig Jungers: Most people believe that a vessel needs to be abandoned > before it can be salvaged. This is not the truth. The fine line between > a rescue and a salvage generally has to do with the risk to the vessel, > the damage to the vessel, and the risk to the potential salvor. > > > Does anyone remember the story of Goetz Hanisch, the guy at Rose Harbour > in the Queen Charlottes? He told me the tale but I've forgot it after > all these years. > The court's decision is also a good story: > http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/CA/04/05/2004BCCA0539.htm Do I ever remember this story! I was camped with three others across Houston Stewart Channel that night and heard some of the VHF dialog between Goetz and the Parks Canada personnel. It was a fierce, raging NE gale where they were. Several of the 8-10 trollers and fishboats anchored in HSC that night slipped their spots and had to motor against the wind to stay put, even with a hook down. We were snug as bugs in a rug on our protected shore, but had a ringside seat for it all. The next day was our scheduled ride back to Moresby Camp, and we figured the outfitter (Moresby Explorers) would likely forgo the pickup and show up a day later. NOT! Bill, head guide for Doug Gould, slipped the nose of their Polaris onto our beach and gave us the ride of our lives, against terrifying head seas, all the way up to Skincuttle Inlet. After that, the remainder was largely protected. Bill said it was his roughest ride ever and mainly regretted he could not smoke and helm the RIB. BTW, Goetz had (has?) a reputation for combativeness. Our scan on the incident was that Goetz just wanted to pull their chain a bit. If they had jollied him around, I suspect it would have all gone away. Parks has a real PR problem with many of the locals in the Charlottes. I believe. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Brad, Why not buy a Northface jacket. You know, the ones with the name of some famous Himalyan mountain embossed on the front. I have a plain one and a buddy of mine I go drinking with when he's in town has the newer series with the mountain name aboce the Northface logo. All the women gravitate toward him and ask him what it's like on top. I think I get jealous with all the attention he gets but then he does turn awefully red at times, as he once again explains he was never there... DL (who isn't very adventurous in a bar unless there is one with a signifigant CFS) > I've thought it over carefully, and decided NOT to go over 186-foot > Palouse Falls in a kayak, or anything else. I did, however, get up the > nerve to buy a new shirt at REI, on sale, and it has an adventurous look > to it. > > Brad > > > Quoting James <jimtibensky_at_fastmail.fm>: > >> "The problem is the media sensationalizing risk taking. I was disturbed >> by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy surfsking in >> 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski destroyed, and >> another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we should be >> striving for? " >> >> Duane >> >> >> As a dedicated coward, I couldn't agree with Duane more. >> > >> Jim Tibensky *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Doug, this is an interesting concept, especially for one who is going bald on top and expanding around the middle, and at increasing risk of cardiac arrest every day. The new REI shirt has kind of a Crocodile Dundee/Indiana Jones look, and should wear well at the grocery store, in Starbucks, or even cruising I-5. Actually, the place to see all the latest action wear is at the monthly kayak club meeting, where everyone dresses like Fred Becky in Tevas. Whoops, I should not have said that. Toast. Brad Quoting Doug Lloyd <douglloyd_at_shaw.ca>: > > Brad, > > Why not buy a Northface jacket. You know, the ones with the name of > some famous Himalyan mountain embossed on the front. I have a plain > one and a buddy of mine I go drinking with when he's in town has the > newer series with the mountain name aboce the Northface logo. All > the women gravitate toward him and ask him what it's like on top. I > think I get jealous with all the attention he gets but then he does > turn awefully red at times, as he once again explains he was never > there... > > DL (who isn't very adventurous in a bar unless there is one with a > signifigant CFS) > >> I've thought it over carefully, and decided NOT to go over 186-foot >> Palouse Falls in a kayak, or anything else. I did, however, get up the >> nerve to buy a new shirt at REI, on sale, and it has an adventurous look >> to it. >> >> Brad >> >> >> Quoting James <jimtibensky_at_fastmail.fm>: >> >>> "The problem is the media sensationalizing risk taking. I was disturbed >>> by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy surfsking in >>> 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski destroyed, and >>> another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we should be >>> striving for? " >>> >>> Duane >>> >>> >>> As a dedicated coward, I couldn't agree with Duane more. >>> >> >>> Jim Tibensky *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
As far as I know the CG here in BC/Canada call these vessels responding to distress as "vessels of opportunity." After we were rescued off Storm Island a few years ago the trip leader sent the fishing vessel skipper a box of whiskey (or some other expensive beverage)p repayment for sure. Loss of time is real money in these days of short openings, especially when kayakers don't have to be out there for any comparable vocational opportunity. Doug Lloyd > Joshua Teitelbaum wrote: > >> Okay, then do I understand correctly? Basically, a ship must come to the >> rescue if it can do so safely, but it can legally demand compensation if >> it so desires. If it does not demand compensation, it is a "good >> samaritan" type of rescue. It it does, it is a salvage operation. Must >> they make such a choice and then inform the USCG? *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Paddlewisers, This rescue reminds me that way too much macho BS is going on in a lot of sports, including sea kayaking. The problem is the media sensationalizing risk taking. I was disturbed by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy surfsking in 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski destroyed, and another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we should be striving for? Duane Southern California *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Well maybe not, but I gotta admit this story has always piqued my kayaking interest: http://tinyurl.com/36v3bz Even so, I realize I'm one of the mortals who shouldn't try such things, but I can dream! Some genius once said: "Crazy is what crazy does", and I suppose some might wonder of the sanity of someone who'd paddle 100 miles straight without ever leaving his kayak!! That waterfall stuff is just crazy though!!! Mark -----Original Message----- I was disturbed by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy surfsking in 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski destroyed, and another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we should be striving for? Duane Southern California *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I believe, sadly, that the procreation rate for people who go over 186 foot waterfalls is not great. This will eventually lead to a race of people who are not willing to plunge more than 3 feet. The future looks grim. Brad Crain Quoting Mark Sanders <marksanders_at_sandmarks.net>: > Well maybe not, but I gotta admit this story has always piqued my kayaking > interest: > > http://tinyurl.com/36v3bz > > Even so, I realize I'm one of the mortals who shouldn't try such things, but > I can dream! > Some genius once said: "Crazy is what crazy does", and I suppose some might > wonder of the sanity of someone who'd paddle 100 miles straight without ever > leaving his kayak!! > That waterfall stuff is just crazy though!!! > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > > I was disturbed by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy > surfsking in 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski > destroyed, and another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we > should be striving for? > > Duane > Southern California *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
"The problem is the media sensationalizing risk taking. I was disturbed by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy surfsking in 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski destroyed, and another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we should be striving for? " Duane As a dedicated coward, I couldn't agree with Duane more. And yet - How many of us cheered on Andrew McAuley when the risk he was taking eventaully killed him and no one was totally surprised? Some risks become extreme because they stretch out over a long time. (Sort of like some of the lifestyle risks like smoking cigarettes.) Jamie McEwan pointed out once, about running rapids, if there is only a one in hundred chance of dying on a rapid, we run it without much thought. But then, what of the odds when we run that rapid a hundred times? Jim Tibensky *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I've thought it over carefully, and decided NOT to go over 186-foot Palouse Falls in a kayak, or anything else. I did, however, get up the nerve to buy a new shirt at REI, on sale, and it has an adventurous look to it. Brad Quoting James <jimtibensky_at_fastmail.fm>: > "The problem is the media sensationalizing risk taking. I was disturbed > by a recent paddling magazine article that glorified a guy surfsking in > 60 knot winds and 15 foot surf, only to have his surfski destroyed, and > another guy going over a 186 foot waterfall. Is this what we should be > striving for? " > > Duane > > > As a dedicated coward, I couldn't agree with Duane more. > > Jim Tibensky *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
So, another question. Say that the paddlers neglected to get the name of the captain before they disembarked. Obviously they cannot send a check to "Vigilant", West Port, Washington. How do they figure out whom to give the money to (owner or Captain, not always the same person) and where to send it? This is especially pertinent when kayakers are from out of the area and ship is not by home port. Or do they have a few cases of beer air dropped to the crew in their current location? Pam in Washington State In a message dated 8/5/2009 4:33:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, crjungers_at_gmail.com writes: In this case, your buddies had not abandoned their vessels, so I don't know > what maritime law says. Rewarding the Vigilant's captain and crew is just > the right thing to do, in my personal code of ethics. Two thousand bucks is > a small price to pay for what the Vigilant did, in my book. > Yup... in my book too. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Pamvetdr_at_aol.com wrote: > So, another question. Say that the paddlers neglected to get the name of > the captain before they disembarked. Obviously they cannot send a check to > "Vigilant", West Port, Washington. How do they figure out whom to give the > money to Google 'em and go from there; Westport is a small town. the maker of these hats will know whom to contact: http://www.zazzle.com/f_v_vigilant_west_coast_crab_fishing_boat_westport_hat-148599497906440050 -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I didn't see the entire video due to download problems until today and didn't notice the "Westport, WA" homeport. In reading the blurb where the kayakers were enroute from Seward to Homer I just assumed that "Vigilant" would be a boat out of Seward or Homer or Kodiak. Dave Kruger's hat link is pretty clearly the same boat as the "good samaritan" (which, I believer, has no legal significance but is just a general description of one mariner coming to the rescue of another) but the database of documented vessels (which this "Vigilant" clearly is) shows nothing out of Westport by that name. But it does show a 50-footer out of Seward. I bet Vigilant works for Glacier Seafoods in Seward. Interesting set of circumstances. I would have never thought of the hat link. :P Craig On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: > Pamvetdr_at_aol.com wrote: > >> So, another question. Say that the paddlers neglected to get the name of >> the captain before they disembarked. Obviously they cannot send a check to >> "Vigilant", West Port, Washington. How do they figure out whom to give the >> money to >> > > Google 'em and go from there; Westport is a small town. the maker of these > hats will know whom to contact: > > > http://www.zazzle.com/f_v_vigilant_west_coast_crab_fishing_boat_westport_hat-148599497906440050 *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM, <Pamvetdr_at_aol.com> wrote: > So, another question. Say that the paddlers neglected to get the name of > the captain before they disembarked. Obviously they cannot send a check to > "Vigilant", West Port, Washington. How do they figure out whom to give the > money to (owner or Captain, not always the same person) and where to send > it? This is especially pertinent when kayakers are from out of the area > and ship is not by home port. Or do they have a few cases of beer air > dropped to the crew in their current location? > Well, in my humble opinion altogether too much beer is already consumed by people operating boats so I'd rule that option out. However there is a mechanism for discovering the owner (at least) of a documented vessel (which most, but not all, fishing vessels are). This link ( http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/CoastGuard/VesselByName.html ) will give you the current owner's name and home port of the vessel. The downside to this system is that there may be more than one vessel - or fishing vessel - with the name *Vigilant*. In fact the list shows 31 of them. But only five are listed as "commercial fishing vessels" and out of those five several are obviously on the east coast of the USA. Only one, a 50-footer out of Seward, Alaska seems to fit the bill. So I'd contact Glacier Seafoods of Seward, Alaska and see if their people were involved in the rescue and ask them how to properly reward them. I should point out that not all - or even most - vessels are documented. Typically documentation is done only for a boat that can be expected to travel outside the borders of the home country. At one time you didn't have to register (get State registration) if your boat is documented but this has changed over the years as the registration processes (like driver's licenses) migrated towards revenue collection systems rather than service mechanisms. But most commercial fishing and passenger vessels are documented (at least in the USA) which makes it pretty easy to find out who is responsible for the boat if you have a name and home port (both must be clearly labeled on the boat). Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:51 PDT