Editor's ColumnRobin Copeland

Should rescued idiots be charged?

  Subsequent to several recent rescue operations many readers have questioned whether the relevant authorities should get serious about recovering the subsequent cost of rescuing “bloody idiots” who go to sea in ignorance and unprepared for the worst.
  Last month New Zealand rescue resources were used twice to go to the aid of three crew of a yacht in the Tasman Sea, who cited “sail damage” and the fear of “running out of fuel” for their demand to be airlifted off their yacht. The 13 metre American-owned yacht Boundless, crewed by two men and one woman on a voyage from Brisbane to Auckland set off a distress beacon after one of its sails was damaged in some heavy seas.
  A Royal New Zealand Air Force Orion located the yacht about 200 nautical miles north east of New Zealand and overflew it, communicating by VHF radio. The crew said they were “worried their stores of diesel may be insufficient for the completion of the journey”.
  The Air Force then monitored the progress of the boat as it continued towards land, and the Rescue Co-ordination Centre New Zealand (RCCNZ) sought to keep in touch via other ships in the area.
  The next day the crew set off another distress signal, having progressed a further 50 nautical miles. They told rescuers this time that they were “concerned about their damaged communications gear and dwindling fuel supplies”.
  RCCNZ then obliged by sending a helicopter with fuel supplies. However, the crew opted instead to abandon the yacht and be winched into the helicopter. They were then flown to Whangarei.
  The yacht eventually washed up on a beach south of Dargaville in the northern North Island. Apparently the only damage done was the mast had broken off in the surf, but the rest of the boat was intact and still in a dry condition. It was locked down when they abandoned it. No mention has been made about who is to pay for the rescue.  Bleeding-hearts claim everyone has the right to expect to be rescued without any cost being charged against them because the rescue services are paid for by taxes. If these “bloody idiots” want to squander the rescue service’s finite finances on trivial whinges it is not unreasonable for the public, who fund these services, to expect those who fritter them away to repay the cost – in some cases many $100,000s – or at least some portion. These services are there for genuine, unexpected rescue situations, such as encountered during the 1998 Hobart; not for the stupid and the naive who demand to be rescued because they get a little scared or cold when they hit some bad weather.
   Robin Copeland