Next message: Trevor J. Kenchington: "Re: 0000 not 2400?"
Jared wrote:
> Jim, I doubt most recreational groundings are even reported, unless someone
> has to call for assistance. And even then...In the US, non-distress calls
> would be directed to a commercial salvor, and a number of boaters are smart
> enough to simply call the salvor (tow insurance, etc.) so you might have to
> see if the tow services have any data on hand.
>
> Kinda like having an elephant on your pool table: Not many folks want to
> admit seeing it there.<G>
>
Even bigger problem with getting the data: Most recreational boats which
touch bottom likely get off again without outside assistance or with
nothing more than a a bit of help from a friend.
And an even bigger problem still: I'm near one extreme of the continuum
but I doubt that I can ever sail in my harbour at low tide without
touching bottom repeatedly. (According to the chart, the harbour dries
at low water springs. It doesn't but it does get pretty shallow. So much
for the accuracy of hydrographic charts away from areas where commercial
vessels operate.) Even at high tide, short-tacking down the channel
towards the harbour narrows typically means choosing between touching on
every tack or making no progress against the wind. With a centreboarder,
that is no big deal. If I really get in a mess, the boat will float in
ankle-deep water with her plate up, so it is step over the side and push
her back into the channel.
Many people cannot afford to be so casual but pretty much everyone who
only operates small boats can be. Trying to distinguish groundings that
matter from the ones like mine that don't would be impossible. So case
studies of problem groundings would be possible but not comprehensive
statistics.
Trevor Kenchington
--
Trevor J. Kenchington PhD
Gadus Associates, Office(902) 889-9250
R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour, Fax (902) 889-9251
Nova Scotia B0J 2L0, CANADA Home (902) 889-3555
Science Serving the Fisheries
http://home.istar.ca/~gadus
