Adventurers Like Abby Sunderland Should Foot the Bill for Rescue
This is getting ridiculous.
An adventurer gets a boatload of money from some corporation to do a feat of daring-do to “raise awareness” for something or other, and then when they get in trouble, like Abby Sunderland, nations throw money away saving the foolhardy from themselves.
Abby Sunderland is just the latest. She’s a 16-year-old girl who wanted to sail around the world solo. I don’t know what her motivation is – or whether she is doing this for a cause or not.
I’m just sick and tired of tax money being spent to rescue people who are making high-risk decisions. I don’t want her to die. I don’t want anybody on an adventure to die. Just know the risks and be willing to accept the consequences for your actions.
We are working closely with American, French and Australian Search & Rescue authorities to coordinate several ships in the area to divert to her location. There are several ships in her area, the earliest possible contact is 40 hours. We are actively seeking out some sort of air rescue but this is difficult due to the remoteness of her location. Australian Search & Rescue have arranged to have a Quantas Airbus fly over her location at first light (she is 11 hours later).
Several ships? A friggin’ Airbus?
If I take my kayak and head down the Niagara River, I don’t expect to be pulled to safety before I tumble over the falls.
But I’m not a blond, blue-eyed California girl either. Pulling a geezer from the river would be filed under “looney-tunes old fart loses his way.”
Maybe you should do a little research about how and why she is doing this before forming an uneducated rant about the situation. “Abby Sunderland is just the latest. She’s a 16-year-old girl who wanted to sail around the world solo. I don’t know what her motivation is – or whether she is doing this for a cause or not.” I’m with you on the tax payers money going to BS, I hate it too. But if a merchant mariner is going to make it there to save her, it’s no money out of our pockets. Personally, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think the biggest money sucker is spent on housing prison inmates that will never be free. Roll out the guillotine and save us all some money. Maybe we will be able to conduct some real reform and free up some room for the rest of the losers.
Give the girl a flipping hand, she is educated and well trained, she made it that far at 16, which is better than most people ever do with their miserable lives altogether. Big dreams backed by action, equal tangible progress.
Yeah but she’s 16……..a little young to be sailing around the world solo don’tcha think?????? and she should foot the bill for the search and rescue.
Nope, I’m not barking up any tree.
She did NOT have to do this. She elected to do it and depended on others to save her ass when she got in trouble.
As far as your other point: kill prisoners to save money is just silly and irrelevant.
What did she accomplish? A book deal? Hand-out from Mommy and Daddy and some corporation?
Spoiled? How can you make that assumption by this? Her parents didn’t buy everything. They worked hard to get sponsors that believed in her. I guess it would be better to plop her down in front of the TV and play video games. I was poor growing up in Orange County, CA. When I discovered photography, my mom tired to buy my something for my birthday and holidays every year so I could peruse it. If my dreams would have been bigger she would have tried to help, but I worked hard too.
April, comparing corporate handouts, etc. with this girl and saving taxpayer money by executing prisoners to offload costs in prisons is like comparing rollerskating with peanut butter.
You need to have a least one common denominator for your comparison to debate an issue, which you did not present in your statement.
Now, to be fair, I am not privy to the latest news on Abby Sunderland, if she is dead, has been eaten by sharks, or has decided to go native in New Zealand. Last I heard was some fluffy report a week ago or so about her sailing.
If she received corporate sponsorship, so be it. If she is receiving corporate dollars for search and rescue, so be it. If the shareholders are fine with this, so be it. If they are not, let them take it up with the board at the next shareholders’ meeting.
We do, however, as taxpaying citizens (in the US), pay for our coast guard to do search and rescues and assist local authorities for naval/aquatic activities that people undertake of their own volition. Coast Guard looks for people all the time in the Atlantic/Pacific/GOM when they go missing. She just happens to be high profile.
So I can’t say one way or another whether or not the taxpayers should front the bill if she goes missing; what I will say is that no more money should be spent on search and rescue for her than would be spent on any other typical civilian. After that, it’s up to the parents to raise money for any additional search and rescue.