The media can’t or won’t figure it out but I can think of 2 or 3 reasons this fellow might have been where he was during the storm. 1. If he was normally in a Marina, many marinas have rules against staying tied up during a storm. And he might have been forced to leave. I have found this to be the case in many Marinas. Most ALL marinas require a boat owner to have a high level of liability insurance to even tie up these days. The prevalent Marina attitude these days seems to be “Give me your money, now leave”. This attitude is not only directed at boaters during storms but also towards boaters who have dreamed of a life of living aboard or wish to do so.
2. If he had been on a mooring or at anchor, perhaps he felt the ground tackle or mooring he was on was not up to the task and if dragging or breaking free would have occurred he might have felt any damage caused by his drifting boat to another craft or vessel would be beyond his ability to afford.
3. It is common knowledge that leaving a confined area or port during a storm is the safest place for a boat to be during severe weather. This is preached in many nautical and maritime circles and has been for many years. Maybe he felt that this was his best choice for survival at the time at the time. There are many reasons for this thinking that are too numerous to mention here. At any rate, I don’t feel as if he should be judged prematurely by a misinformed media.
4. It is very true that there were shelters provided probably nearby to him that would have offered him a safe place to go in a storm. But it is also likely that like many people who choose to live aboard, he would have no alternatives to becoming homeless if his boat was lost and in his view the best way to protect his property was to stay with it.
Darwin awards. I'd like to believe there's a reason he would endanger all those souls, but one does not come to mind. Must have been another alternative with days of notice.
The media can’t or won’t figure it out but I can think of 2 or 3 reasons this fellow might have been where he was during the storm. 1. If he was normally in a Marina, many marinas have rules against staying tied up during a storm. And he might have been forced to leave. I have found this to be the case in many Marinas. Most ALL marinas require a boat owner to have a high level of liability insurance to even tie up these days. The prevalent Marina attitude these days seems to be “Give me your money, now leave”. This attitude is not only directed at boaters during storms but also towards boaters who have dreamed of a life of living aboard or wish to do so.
2. If he had been on a mooring or at anchor, perhaps he felt the ground tackle or mooring he was on was not up to the task and if dragging or breaking free would have occurred he might have felt any damage caused by his drifting boat to another craft or vessel would be beyond his ability to afford.
3. It is common knowledge that leaving a confined area or port during a storm is the safest place for a boat to be during severe weather. This is preached in many nautical and maritime circles and has been for many years. Maybe he felt that this was his best choice for survival at the time at the time. There are many reasons for this thinking that are too numerous to mention here. At any rate, I don’t feel as if he should be judged prematurely by a misinformed media.
4. It is very true that there were shelters provided probably nearby to him that would have offered him a safe place to go in a storm. But it is also likely that like many people who choose to live aboard, he would have no alternatives to becoming homeless if his boat was lost and in his view the best way to protect his property was to stay with it.
They should charge the idiot the cost of the rescue and endangering the dog.
Darwin awards. I'd like to believe there's a reason he would endanger all those souls, but one does not come to mind. Must have been another alternative with days of notice.
So, the boat is just left there unattended?