This is my observation and comment as a fisherman on this issue – I speak for myself and no one else: The Coast Guard has changed its protocol on responding to commercial fishing vessel distress from one of action to inaction in the past 20 years or so. The Coast Guard will now do everything possible to pass the act of aiding a distressed fishing vessel to another fisherman and then and only then will they render assistance. This is typically done by them sending a security out on VHF channel 16 to alert would be helpers to respond and proceed to the distressed vessel and report back to them as conditions, timing and logistics of the situation unfolds. This is (or at least appears to fishermen) to be essentially soliciting aid from a willing fisherman to eliminate / exonerate them from action and legal liability. The fisherman who responded to the stricken vessel in this case went above and beyond the call of duty in rendering assistance by steaming a considerable distance in rough seas to reach the stricken vessel. Any shortfall on the captain’s part in the myriad skills involved in rendering that assistance is in my opinion a moot point. A fisherman after all is not a tow boat operator and not necessarily skilled in this particular type of vessel maneuvering and should not be judged or adjudicated against in that skill or lack thereof. The responding vessel’s captain and crew should be judged purely and unequivocally upon their act of courage and mental fortitude simply by the fact that they are rendering assistance and doing what is right. That is the law of the sea; to render assistance to a stricken vessel at all costs, whenever possible to save life and limb. Had the Coast Guard responding to the stricken vessel to begin with and not put that burden on a fisherman the outcome may have been very different. Time is of the essence in these situations and that valuable metric was squandered in this situation. I say this with trepidation because the Coast Guard saved my crew and self in 2005 when my fishing vessel sank. I am and will forever be in awe of the helicopter pilots and crew for their effort and incredible skill in that case. In closing I would state that I have the utmost respect for the Coast Guard and its personnel, but I have just as much or more for a working fisherman who answers the call of duty when another vessel is stricken; a duty which is outside of the normal bounds of his working conditions, environment and skill sets. Placing any blame or culpability on fishermen in these situations will not only disparage their reputation but dissuade them from rendering assistance in the future which goes against the law of the sea.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This is my observation and comment as a fisherman on this issue – I speak for myself and no one else: The Coast Guard has changed its protocol on responding to commercial fishing vessel distress from one of action to inaction in the past 20 years or so. The Coast Guard will now do everything possible to pass the act of aiding a distressed fishing vessel to another fisherman and then and only then will they render assistance. This is typically done by them sending a security out on VHF channel 16 to alert would be helpers to respond and proceed to the distressed vessel and report back to them as conditions, timing and logistics of the situation unfolds. This is (or at least appears to fishermen) to be essentially soliciting aid from a willing fisherman to eliminate / exonerate them from action and legal liability. The fisherman who responded to the stricken vessel in this case went above and beyond the call of duty in rendering assistance by steaming a considerable distance in rough seas to reach the stricken vessel. Any shortfall on the captain’s part in the myriad skills involved in rendering that assistance is in my opinion a moot point. A fisherman after all is not a tow boat operator and not necessarily skilled in this particular type of vessel maneuvering and should not be judged or adjudicated against in that skill or lack thereof. The responding vessel’s captain and crew should be judged purely and unequivocally upon their act of courage and mental fortitude simply by the fact that they are rendering assistance and doing what is right. That is the law of the sea; to render assistance to a stricken vessel at all costs, whenever possible to save life and limb. Had the Coast Guard responding to the stricken vessel to begin with and not put that burden on a fisherman the outcome may have been very different. Time is of the essence in these situations and that valuable metric was squandered in this situation. I say this with trepidation because the Coast Guard saved my crew and self in 2005 when my fishing vessel sank. I am and will forever be in awe of the helicopter pilots and crew for their effort and incredible skill in that case. In closing I would state that I have the utmost respect for the Coast Guard and its personnel, but I have just as much or more for a working fisherman who answers the call of duty when another vessel is stricken; a duty which is outside of the normal bounds of his working conditions, environment and skill sets. Placing any blame or culpability on fishermen in these situations will not only disparage their reputation but dissuade them from rendering assistance in the future which goes against the law of the sea.
Sorry for typos and wording errors!