Teen sailor Abby Sunderland missing at sea

[SamuraiLandshark]

<p>She didn’t lose her life. Fortunately.</p>

<p>She required a rescue that cost $300,000 and put other people’s lives in danger when things went south. </p>

<p>Perhaps anyone who wants to go on an adventure like this should be required to carry an insurance rider that will pay for a rescue, if needed. My son is in Asia now and I purchased an insurance plan that would provide for emergency medical or trip evacuation for a number of reasons. </p>

<p>Sunderland’s parents are crying “poor.” I bet they are with 7 kids, with one on the way.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean it’s right that other people are footing the bill or putting themselves at risk to save their child on her misadventures.</p>

<p>Whether it is Octomom or Balloon Boy or Abby, there is a prevailing theme. Do extreme things and get your 15 minutes of fame. All of these stunts have been done with the idea of possible reality shows.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>Please explain how “it is a miracle that she survived.”</p>

<p>BTW-- I have no problem with the assertion that there could be some legal way to make them pay for the rescue. But, iMO that is a separate issue from the endangerment issue.</p>

[worried_mom]

<p>Exactly how do the parents claim to be “poor” with a straight face when they sent their daughter to sea in a boat costing over $100,000? Poor families do not take up expensive hobbies like ocean sailing.</p>

[roshke]

<p>Laurence Sunderland, from the link in #325:</p>

<p>"We are born-again Christians, and we don’t make any decision just based on feeling or even on sound knowledge”</p>

<p>Well, he can say the last part again.</p>

<p>worried mom - The dad was quoted as far back as when Zac made his trip as saying that they were tapped out, broke. His business was teaching sailing and ship building (or something similar), but suffered reversals when the recession hit. I believe they raised money for the kids’ journeys through sponsorships, fundraising and so forth. The master plan was for a reality show and book deal etc. to save the day. Abby is still planning to write a book based on all this. Desperate times called for desperate measures, in their case, I think, not that that is a justification.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>Abby’s Mom says there is no reality show in the works.</p>

<p>[Mother:</a> No Reality TV Show in the Works for Family of Abby Sunderland](<a href=“http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/mother-no-reality-tv-show-in-the-works-for-family-of-abby-sunderland/19517144?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Fmother-no-reality-tv-show-in-the-works-for-family-of-abby-sunderland%2F19517144]Mother:”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com)</p>

[HImom]

<p>The only reason there’s no reality show is because no one would buy rights to it so the family reclaimed their rights to it. It is amazing that this child is alive and because she’s attractive and can write reasonably well, she may well have a few people who buy any book she is able to write & have published, but ICK!</p>

<p>I really think that folks should HAVE to have a bond of insurance to cover costs when they embark on a known risky adventure of this kind. It needs to be part of the “sport” and permitting process.</p>

[SamuraiLandshark]

<p>There is no reality show, now…but there was one planned, previously according to news reports. For whatever reasons, one or both sides pulled out of the deal prior to Abby’s mishap. </p>

<p>Never fear. There is still a website up with memorabilia and you absolutely know there will be a book in the works. A ghost writer will get it written as quickly as possible and it will hit the shelves to maximize on whatever profits can be gleaned. I predict less than 3 months before this book hits Costco or Borders.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>This is from an interview with the Australian man in charge.</p>

<p>

Abby’s emergency beacon went off outside Australia’s search and rescue region, in the region of La Reunion and La Reunion asked Australia for assistance.</p>

<p>The boat then drifted into Australia’s search and rescue region. Australia is now co-ordinating the rescue mission.</p>

<p>When asked if Australia would seek to get the money back, Mr Kinley said: "No, that’s the way the system runs.</p>

<p>"We would expect people to rescue any Australian yachtsman in these conditions,‘’ he said.</p>

<p>"It’s our obligation to do this and we’ll fulfil those obligations as Australia does.‘’

</p>

<p>Those Australians, just DON"T GET IT! Why should we prudent Americans foot the cost of rescuing Jessica Watson, if she needed assistance in the US’s region, without her paying for it?</p>

<p>What about a general “pay as you go” system? If you don’t make a sufficient deposit or provide insurance coverage, no emergency assistance/rescue attempt gets made?</p>

<p>That could work in regard to all risky choices. If you or your spouse or child is overweight and out of shape, no EMT’s for that heart attack without advance pay! Your underage teen drinks and drives and hits a tree; 911 asks for proof of pre-payment in order to send someone.</p>

<p>Skid marks indicate you were exceeding the speed limit when your car flipped trapping you inside? They let you burn to death unless–you have “stupidity insurance”!</p>

<p>No stupidity insurance when you take the family camping to some remote area in Arkansas between two rivers and don’t take something that allows you to get the ADVANCE WARNINGS of the danger from the rains that were actually given, then no rescue attempt and we send your kin a bill for recovery of the bodies before releasing the bodies for burial. That’ll teach those risk takers!</p>

<p>Don’t even get started on state and federal funds to rescue/assist risk taker who continue to live (and die) in earthquake, tornado, hurricane and flooding prone areas. The idea!</p>

<p>What is the difference in “a stunt” and being fat and out of shape, drinking and driving, speeding, camping in remote areas w/out contact to warning systems or living where natural disasters are a given? You think under age kids don’t routinely die in these situations? You think people who attempt to rescue these folks don’t sometime die in making the effort? Have you read what some of these rescue attempts cost?</p>

<p>Answer: well, (sniff) I wouldn’t engage in such a stunt or “let” my child do it.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>Yes, emergency crews are supposed to aid those in need at no cost to the person who has the emergency. </p>

<p>However…two things…</p>

<p>One is that in certain situations, the person being rescued DOES foot the bill. I know in my region that those who ski out of bounds and have to be rescued, must pay for the rescue expenses to rescue organizations. </p>

<p>Two…in the case of Abby…the fishing boat who came to her rescue and plucked her were not government emergency crews. They were private citizens who risked their lives in a storm (one even fell overboard during the rescue) and also had expenses to travel to her location, as well as missed time/money for their regular work. In my opinion, such folks should be compensated by the person in distress. It went beyond being a good neighbor or samaritan. Private citizens do not sign on to risk life and limb to rescue others, as do police, coast guard, firemen, etc. They are also not paid for their rescue work. Perhaps there is insurance you can buy to foot such rescue expenses. Even students who travel overseas to study abroad have to purchase insurance to pay for expenses to send them back home in emergencies or in case of death.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>Here is just one example of an article about how in my region, those who ski out of bounds who require emergency rescue will be billed for such services. </p>

<p>[Reckless</a> charges: Times Argus Online](<a href=“http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050116/NEWS/50115018/1003/NEWS02]Reckless”>http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050116/NEWS/50115018/1003/NEWS02)</p>

<p>

Reckless charges
Police to make careless skiers pay for rescue operations</p>

<p>By ALAN J. KEAYS Staff Writer - Published: January 16, 2005</p>

<p>Trailblazing skiers who get lost and rescued may soon pay a steep price.</p>

<p>Vermont State Police say they are looking to crack down on skiers who recklessly go off resort trails and become lost, prompting full-scale searches. And four Pennsylvania men who skied out of bounds last month at Killington Ski Resort and spent a bone-chilling night in the woods may be the first this season to get a bill.</p>

<p>“We do believe that we have to take a much more aggressive approach on these to get the message out that this kind of behavior is putting other folks’ lives in danger in order to go find these folks,” said Maj. James Baker, who oversees the state police search-and-rescue team.</p>

<p>“We feel like folks are just not getting the message about the danger of skiing out of bounds,” he said. “What worries me this year is we haven’t had much snow and we’ve had two signifi-cant searches.”</p>

<p>Both of those search-and-rescue operations took place at Killington Ski Resort.</p>

<p>The four Pennsylvania men who skied off the trail and spent a night outside in bitter cold temperatures necessitated the first search and rescue of the season. More than three dozen rescue workers took part in that effort, which also involved a Vermont National Guard helicopter.</p>

<p>“I’m almost sure we’re going to bill for the four individuals who skied out of bounds,” Baker said. “Folks that come to those mountains have to be discouraged from doing that.”…

</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>

That could work in regard to all risky choices. If you or your spouse or child is overweight and out of shape, no EMT’s for that heart attack without advance pay! Your underage teen drinks and drives and hits a tree; 911 asks for proof of pre-payment in order to send someone.

</p>

<p>Who is asking for a “prepay” in this kind of situation? I’m seeing a call for reimbursement for rescue services. People who receive EMT and ambulance services for illnesses and accidents DO get billed for those after the fact like any other medical interventions.</p>

<p>You keep coming up with absurd strawman arguments to counter the notion that Abby’s voyage was ill advised, irresponsible, and overly dangerous.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>Another…</p>

<p>[Gladed</a> Terrain](<a href=“http://www.smuggs.com/pages/winter/skiride/glades.php]Gladed”>Smugglers' Notch Vermont Gladed Terrain)</p>

<p>From Smuggler’s Notch ski area:</p>

<p>

Smuggs Off Trail Policy
Wooded areas beyond the marked ski resort area boundary as shown on the trail map are closed to skiing and snowboarding. Woods between open trails are not marked trails, are not patrolled and have no skier/snowboarder services. If you decide to ski or snowboard inside the ski resort area boundary, enter from and exit to an open trail. If you ski or snowboard in these wooded areas, you are solely responsible for yourself. You should be an expert skier or snowboarder, and you should stay in groups of three or more. If you ski or snowboard beyond the ski resort area boundary, Vermont Law provides that you are liable for all expenses for search and rescue services.
Do not ski or snowboard on or across closed trails.

</p>

[soozievt]

<p>By the way, when my child was severely injured in a serious car accident, we were billed for the ambulances…both the one that transported her to the nearest hospital and the one that transferred her to a bigger hospital that had specialists she required.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>Another article…</p>

<p>[Howstuffworks</a> “Who pays for search and rescue operations?”](<a href=“http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/pay-for-search-and-rescue.htm/printable]Howstuffworks”>Who pays for search and rescue operations? | MapQuest Travel)</p>

<p>

Who pays for search and rescue operations?
by Charles W. Bryant</p>

<p>A trio of snowboarders slide up to a steep drop-off at a desolate section of a Colorado mountain and notice a sign that reads “DANGER: NO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY BEYOND THIS POINT.” They look at each other, fist bump and take off over the edge anyway. Hours later a rescue helicopter arrives to pick up the snowboarders who are struggling to survive in various stages of frostbite and injury.</p>

<p>This scenario has become more common in recent years as adventurers seek to outdo one another. And it’s not just skiers and snowboarders. It’s climbers, hikers, campers, boaters, scuba divers, kayakers and even bird watchers. If there is an activity that involves the great outdoors, then there’s a potential for danger, accident and ultimately a need for rescue.</p>

<p>When it comes to search and rescue (SAR), the debate over who should foot the bill has reached a fever pitch. Every time a high profile rescue is performed because an outdoor enthusiast acted recklessly or maybe even illegally, the news media is rife with commentary over the cost associated with the operation. In years past, these rescues didn’t get as much attention, but as expenses have grown, it’s become a hot topic that can’t be ignored. It also has something to do with the nature of the “extreme” athlete. The mountain face can never be high enough; the ski run can never be steep enough. These thrill-seekers look for ground that no one else dares to tread, and this kind of recreation comes with inherent dangers.</p>

<p>The cost of rescue operations varies wildly depending on the scenario. Who ultimately pays depends on what agencies are involved in the rescue, where it takes place and the circumstances that put the victim into harm’s way to begin with. We’ll look at the different policies regarding the cost of SAR on the following page…

</p>

<p>

When it comes to local and state expenses, there have been some changes in recent years. Several states have passed ordinances that allow the county or state to recoup costs associated with rescue, depending on the scenario, and they’ve done so in some high-profile operations. The states of New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont are all allowed to recover funds, but so far only New Hampshire has made great efforts to do so. The law in New Hampshire had already been in place for about 10 years when legislators changed the language from charging for rescue in cases where the victim was “reckless” to “negligent.” Debate has been inevitable because there is no set definition of negligence.</p>

<p>In Colorado, outdoor enthusiasts are encouraged, but not required, to purchase a CORSAR card. It stands for Colorado Search and Rescue Card and it ensures that a cardholder won’t be charged for SAR operations if they need it. It costs a mere $3 per year and the funds go to reimburse local and state SAR teams and fund training and equipment. In Europe, you’re on your own with costs for rescue, but many outdoor enthusiasts purchase special insurance that covers costs if a rescue is needed.

</p>

[07DAD]

<p>Nrdsb4: see post #346</p>

<p>

I really think that folks should HAVE to have a bond of insurance to cover costs when they embark on a known risky adventure of this kind. It needs to be part of the “sport” and permitting process.

</p>

<p>Some suggest that you not be permitted to go unless you have posted it. So, its not far fetched for those who know what is best for everyone else. </p>

<p>BTW–read the article in #350–the volunteer group who assists in the rescue was against the idea of charging.</p>

<p>The following was deleted out of post #354.</p>

<p>

Who ultimately ends up paying for search and rescue (SAR) operations depends on many factors. If it’s the Coast Guard or the National Park Service (NPS), then they pick up the bill. Or rather, the taxpaying citizens of the United States do. Neither agency has a policy for charging for SAR missions. The concept of billing outdoor enthusiasts who put themselves in harm’s way is controversial, but on the national radar. The National Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR) is made up of more than 10,000 volunteers along with paid local, state and national rescue professionals. Founded in 1973, the official position of the group is that billing for SAR operations should be avoided, although it remains up to the local jurisdictions involved in the mission.</p>

<p>The NPS offsets the costs of SAR operations with the money brought in by the fees paid by millions of park visitors each year. The money spent in a single year on SAR ends up costing about 1.5 cents per park visitor [source: Fagin]. Whenever the military is involved, the costs are generally counted as training dollars since there’s nothing like a real-world scenario to ensure that personnel are at the ready and in practice.

</p>

[worried_mom]

<p>In AZ, we have a “Stupid Motorist Law” that is used quite frequently. It applies when a driver ignores flash flood warnings and drives around barricades and then has to be rescued when the vehicle gets swept downstream. The law allows agencies to bill the driver for the costs of the rescue, although only up to a maximum of $2,000. Oh well, at least it helps to cover a portion of the cost of rescuing these yahoos.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>I personally don’t care if someone purchases the insurance ahead of time or pays for the rescue for this type of thing after the fact.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>Also, the volunteer group (that you referred to, 07Dad) who did not want to be reimbursed are volunteers for search and rescue missions. </p>

<p>The fishing boat personnel who rescued Abby did not sign on as volunteer search and rescue people in their community. These folks risked life and limb and had expenses to incur and lost work time for this rescue. They were not volunteer organizations.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>I’ve attempted to find any indication that the people on that boat have ever indicated that they feel they should be compensated or that they were at any greater risk than they experience every day at sea fishing as they do for a living. Have you looked at a map to see where Le Reunion is? Those folks are on the open ocean all the time. </p>

<p>Seems it is the arm-chair folks who are so concerned about what these folks who live on the ocean haven’t expressed any concern about.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>[AB</a> 1461 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis](<a href=“http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1461_cfa_950619_134348_sen_comm.html]AB”>http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1461_cfa_950619_134348_sen_comm.html)</p>

<p>

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE<br>
Charles M. Calderon, Chairman<br>
1995-96 Regular Session</p>

<p>AB 1461 (Bordonaro)
As amemded on June 19, 1995
Hearing date: June 27, 1995
Government Code
KJJ:md</p>

<pre><code> COUNTY SEARCHES OR RESCUES
COSTS TO INDIVIDUALS
</code></pre>

<p>Source: California State Sheriffs Association</p>

<p>Related Pending Legislation: AB 867 (V. Brown) which is double-<br>
joined to this bill.

</p>

<p>This is a relevant excerpt…</p>

<p>

This bill permits a county to charge a person living within that<br>
county for actual costs incurred in conducting a search or rescue<br>
for that person. The need for the search or rescue must be caused<br>
by any of the following:</p>

<pre><code> (1) Any intentional act in violation of any federal or
state
law or local ordinance.

    (2) Any intentional act that is inherently dangerous and  
the      
        person searched for or rescued knew of this risk.

    (3) Any act or omission by the person searched for or  
rescued     that shows a reckless or wanton disregard for his  
or her      
        safety.

</code></pre>

<p>This bill provides a county shall not collect charges from those<br>
persons who the county determines are unable to pay.</p>

<p>This bill exempts from evidence of an intentional act that is<br>
inherently dangerous a “cautionary small craft statements”, and </p>

<p>AB 1461 (Bordonaro)
Page 5</p>

<p>“small craft advisories”. </p>

<p>This bill permits a county to recover actual costs of a search or<br>
rescue in an unlimited amount when the person was engaged in any<br>
intentional act in violation of any federal or state law or local<br>
ordinance.</p>

<p>This bill permits a county to recover actual costs of a search or<br>
rescue up to $10,000 for (1) any intentional act that is inherently<br>
dangerous and the person searched for or rescued knew of this risk,<br>
or (2) any act or omission by the person searched for or rescued<br>
that shows a reckless or wanton disregard for his or her safety.

</p>