Luckily that didn't stop him from heading out on his PWC to shoot photos of surfers braving a clean late January swell.
While his presence may have miffed some, it's clear now that his quick action saved the life of surfer Jacob Trette when disaster struck in the morning. Ord's life-saving action is exactly why many surfers opposed the ban in the first place, citing the lack of life-saving apparatus allowed near the break on big days as a danger.
The incident occurred at approximately 9:45 am Saturday morning, when a huge set of waves caught a number of surfers by surprise. Many of them had been lured closer to shore where cleaner waves were breaking more consistently on the higher tide. Then suddenly a huge 25-foot cleanup set approached, heaving way outside of where the pack was sitting. Surfers scrambled and scratched for the horizon to avoid being pummeled in the impact zone. Trette was one of the unlucky ones.
The 30-year-old surfer was sucked over the falls by the first wave after failing to make it over. (He's visible in in the middle of the shot above, paddling the green board.) When he finally resurfaced Trette was staring straight at another 20-foot wave crashing down on him. He endured two two-wave hold downs before being washed through the rocks inside.
When the set approached Ord was sitting safely in the channel on his ski, but sprang into action as soon as the 20-foot set cleared. In the commotion, he nabbed Alex Bottello, another victim, and pulled him out of the impact zone. He was zipping Bottello toward shore when the two spotted Trette's lifeless body floating face-up in the frothy whitewater way inside.
Ord jumped in the water and pulled him onto the rescue sled attached to his ski. Bottello then held Trette's body in place on the sled while Ord raced to shore, where an EMT and another surfer skilled in CPR went to work on Trette. They continued until Firefighters arrived and managed to get a pulse.
Trette was later air lifted to Stanford Medical Center, where according to the San Francisco Chronicle, he was put into a medically induced coma after arriving. As of Sunday morning, no official update on his condition has broken, but according to the Half Moon Bay Review, renowned local photographer/lifesaver Frank Quirarte, the man spearheading this year's annual big wave competition, gave an unofficial update on Trette's status early Sunday:
"As of last evening Jacob was moving his arms and legs and his pupils are dilating. They're lowering his body temp so he doesn't use as much oxygen and keeping him heavily sedated. He has an anoxic brain injury due to lack of oxygen to the brain. To early to tell how much damage has been done if any. Sending our prayers to him and his family."UPDATE: According to Stanford Medical Center Trette remains in critical condition as of 5:00 p.m. PT Sunday.
Back in 2007 and 2008, when the ban was being debated, Quirarte was adamantly lobbying for safety logic, citing the concern to big-wave surfers. The ban even became a wedge issue among surfing environmentalists in the local Surfrider Chapter as the two sides struggled to find a consensus on the issue. None was reached within the tight-knit surfing community. Ultimately Quirarte's side lost.
Saturday's incident is likely to bring the wisdom of NOAA's rules back into question. Ever since the 1994 death of big-wave surfing legend Mark Foo at Maverick's photographers based on land and in the water have become a vital part of the rescue efforts when surfers get in trouble.
Both groups of photographers carry radios and stay in communication with each other to identify victims in need of help. "The ban has completely broken that system down," says veteran Maverick's photographer Don Montgomery. "If something happens to Jacob or any of these surfers there's no question it's on NOAA's shoulders. Had the usual crafts been out there, including Frank's [Quirarte], we would have been on Jacob much faster. Russel didn't even see him until late because he was already helping somebody else."
Photo of Saturday's massive Maverick's set wave taken by Don Montgomery. All rights reserved.
130 Comments
1-20 of 130
Posted by justonemore January 23, 2011 10:26am PSTReply | Report Abuse
NOAA should give Russell Ord a ticket for using his Wave Runner out there..... NOT
What a bunch of kooks NOAA is, they sit in some office and make a decision that can kill a human live with no justification that a Wave Runner has any negative effect on the Ocean. I live at the beach, I have seen diesel leaking fish boats throwing garbage, old line and tackle, even shooting seals, but that's fine in the MBMS. But a clean 4-stroke Wave Runner is bad? What a joke NOAA. Lake Tahoe has the strongest restriction for clean water in California and they allow a 4-stroke Wave Runner once it has been certified buy the TRPA.
All I can say is WAKE UP NOAA, visit the beach when the swell is 12-15 ft and see the destruction of mother nature in action. With tons of sand being torn and replaced from the beaches, huge amounts of kelp ripped off the reefs, cliffs eroding into the ocean, sea life swimming down along the bottom to avoid the mass destruction from above and a Wave Runner is posing a problem. NOAA you are a bunch of KOOKS.
Reply by charles garvin January 23, 2011 03:18pm PSTReport Abuse
"I have seen diesel leaking fish boats throwing garbage, old line and tackle, even shooting seals, but that's fine in the MBMS."
Did you report their boat name and number to the MBMS? If not, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Reply by kevin mccoy January 23, 2011 04:08pm PSTReport Abuse
You can report that all day long. There is nothing they can do unless they actually see it happening. You obviously missed the point -justonemore- was trying to make.
Reply by fitz1225 January 23, 2011 04:16pm PSTReport Abuse
CHarles you are right and wrong he is not the problem but he can be a solution people like you are the proiblem not knowing what they are saying when they get on here and that pisses me off if you post a message about this stuff have some information leading up to why for example "charles" the reason why he isnt the problem is because how is he the problem if he isnt doing what the fishermen are doing and also don't curse up a storm on here this a website for all ages and children read these things that swearing is not suitable for them to see. thank you if you took the time to read this and take it into consideration
Reply by bobbigguns January 23, 2011 04:17pm PSTReport Abuse
mott1992 + charles garvin = Crying tree huggers
Reply by ricky dav January 23, 2011 04:30pm PSTReport Abuse
I think someone who is close to this person needs to get a lawyer for him and sue the hell out of NOAA and make them pay for his lost time of work and all the other bills he is getting from this, maybe than they would think twice before putting a jack ass law like that to be inforce.
I hope he get better and come back strong. God Bless
Reply by ann scarborough January 23, 2011 04:36pm PSTReport Abuse
Nah...Mr Garvin is probably the owner of one of those diesel leaking fishing boats. Or purhaps he's one of the idiots that sits behind a desk making these stupid laws when he has little more common sense than a cucumber.
When are people going to stop blaming everyone else for a crime other than the man that's actually doing the crime? For example, stop blaming everyone that owns a firearm for the shooting of a Governor and start blaming the idiot that pulled the triger!!! Stop blaming the guy that didn't report the environmentaly friendly boat to authorities and start blaming the moron that owns the boat.
Reply by ann scarborough January 23, 2011 04:37pm PSTReport Abuse
Oops! the envoronmentally UNfriendly boat...
Reply by mott1992 January 23, 2011 04:39pm PSTReport Abuse
I am deff not a tree hugger. I preach days on end against all that b.s. environmental crap that's been thrown around corrupting our once perfect nation. Besides that, my last comment I posted got deleted for some strange reason anyways. boobigguns, I'm mostly likely on your side bro, I'm sorry if you misunderstood something.
Reply by mercenarygrip January 23, 2011 04:45pm PSTReport Abuse
Hey fitz1225, punctuation is your friend. I know the waves were epic that day, but maybe you should have gone to your English class instead of hitting the beach, ya know??
Reply by mystik_man January 23, 2011 06:25pm PSTReport Abuse
Anyone who doubts that extreme deterioration of the environment are nothing but ignorant. Nor can they say they care about children and their future. Read some books rather than listening to the industry propaganda, and related political friends, that wants people to doubt it so they can keep raking in the money. Climate change and the environmental destabilization is NOT a theory, it is a hardcore scientific fact.
Personal Watercraft are extremely dirty devices on average. Most of them are not 4-stroke engines, Yamaha has been ahead for years with high compression 4-strokes. Till they all are that way, there is no plausible way to enforce some are ok, others are not. The excuse that fishing boats are worse is no argument. I worked at a dealer, did maintenance on them. Most are large bore, multi cylinder 2-stoke engines that put out a constant oil exhaust. Nothing is worse for the marine life. You actually put gallons of oil into them to burn with the gas fill up. 2-Stroke engines are not so good on land, they are detrimental in the water. Way worse than some diesel, or even old tackle/line, from a fishing boat if you must compare the two evils. It is a fact that 2-stroke varieties create more acid rain producing, environmentally damaging pollutants in a couple hours than a modern 4 cylinder car (with pollution control devices) will in a year of average use. They are fun, and in this case help save lives. But, they are one of the worse things someone can do to the environment in relation to personal vehicular usage.
Bottom line is the world can do without a recreational sport. It CANNOT do without the marine ecosystem. I beg anyone that doubts the dire state of the environment (air/water pollution, land erosion, deforestation, increasing extinction, etc.) to do the research themselves with an open-mind. The facts speak for themselves.
Reply by milan January 23, 2011 07:11pm PSTReport Abuse
Actually most Pwc these days are 4 strokes and i know for a fact all the ones out at mavs are
.and how on earth can you get upset with a pwc, with thousands of huge tankers, fishing boats and navy ships in the water. there is raw sewage being pumped into the ocean.
Because the navy and shipping companies would laugh at you if you told them they cant have ships. so people like you attack a small group of guys that are pushing the limits of there sport.
a couple of PWC's out at mavericks 4 or 5 times a year has almost no impact on the enviroment and will save peoples lives
Reply by sasquatchbob January 23, 2011 07:47pm PSTReport Abuse
To Bobbigguns... Is that supposed to be an insult? Calling someone a tree hugger? Good job making a fool of yourself..
Reply by offthewall2 January 23, 2011 07:59pm PSTReport Abuse
Again, rather than protect the environment for the larger population, the original poster wants government to bail him or her out from their own foolish choices.
Reply by mystik_man January 23, 2011 09:02pm PSTReport Abuse
Milan- That is the typical excuse though. Oh, there is worse stuff out there, so who cares. What makes you think if someone is upset over PWC usage, they are not upset over the other stuff even more so. That is a no-brainer, they're all a bad self-destructive aspect of this civilization. One fact is that coastlines are way more sensitive to pollution than the deep sea. That has been known for decades. I've dived in dead reef areas from coastline pollution. Even if there is no reefs, it is still a delicate area.
That is huge assumption that all the PWC 2-strokes are gone, and only newer 4-strokes exist. Maybe most there, but not everywhere. They have not been around long enough to have such a turnover to occur. That is like saying no one drives a car older than 2000. It does not happen that way. Nor can you say it has almost no impact on the environment. That too is an assumption. No doubt they have gotten better, but the problems have not disappeared even with the 4-stroke technology.
One fact is that people that partake assume the risk. The environment does not have the option to say I don't want surfers here. I believe in environmental rights as much as human freedom. However, I'm going to side with the natural ecosystem that cannot speak before human life any day, when the danger was their choice. Death is not the end. It fear of it must risk damaging the environment, then one should not make such a choice or deal with the possible. consequences. This society plays a deadly game every day putting the environment second to economy, and yes, even humanity. The world will go on without us, it will not be a very pretty picture the other way around.
Reply by world99 January 23, 2011 09:14pm PSTReport Abuse
It's not a pollution issue at all why the crafts are banned. It's due to the fact that on medium days like this these crafts were interfering with paddling surfers by tow teams. And why is this such a huge battle on here? Some guy is near death and maybe some positive energy would be more helpful than worrying about the pinheads at NOAA.
Reply by wurlygurl17 January 23, 2011 09:19pm PSTReport Abuse
To sasquatchbob and all the others: your right, the term "tree hugger" has been dubbed negative just like "hippy" or "flower child" but I stand proud and when someone calls me by those names, I smile and say yep that's me. I love mother earth in all her glory and people need to realize that yes there are those who don't care about the detrimental effects of our societies and yes they are at fault for their actions; but there are also those who want to protect the earth that has given us her life and those are the people who need to teach others to treat the earth with better care. I have a saying "if you don't tell me I am doing something wrong, how am I supposed to fix it?" Yes, I do believe that human life needs protecting but also that of marine life...so in that respect a law is not needed to ban all PWCs but only allow the ones that are safer on the environment and only allow them on the water when it deems a safety concern for the surfers. Instead of blaming people for their incompetence why don't you try to give some reasonable solutions to the problems at hand, this includes all your comments on the matter. I also agree that listening to propaganda isn't going to get you anywhere, go back to school and learn a thing or two before you start spouting off nonsense.
Reply by richard koch January 23, 2011 09:21pm PSTReport Abuse
the enviroment is cleaner than it has been for over 40 years. please stop quoting facts that are not true...and as far as the oil that is in the two stroke exaust ,,,it evaporates within hours,,,the ocean naturally leaks oil at a rate that far exceeds all of the oil spills in the last 100 years,,,the largest producer of co2 pollution is the evaporating water from the oceans not man mans controbution is less than 2% that amount dosent even compair with the yearly varaition from natural sources..the beaches are not being poluted with watercraft,,,,,you would have a much more valid argument going after noise pollution
Reply by silentwolf January 23, 2011 09:27pm PSTReport Abuse
Here's a thought....ban the 2 stroke engines. Problem solved.
Reply by samurai January 23, 2011 10:01pm PSTReport Abuse
mystic man. go strap yourself to a tree and shut it please. idiots like you are destroying sports like motocross, trail riding etc etc etc... and here is some research for you, when Mt St Helens erupted it did more damage the the atmosphere than Mankind has done in his existence. If you are that vain to think a freaking boat is doing that much damage you sir, are an idiot. A 2 stroke motor can run as clean as a 4 stroke with the correct setup. And until you have a degree in engineering motors or have studied them , please, keep your ignorance to yourself.
Reply by sergio q 1 January 24, 2011 12:31am PSTReport Abuse
1st) **THANK GOD RUSSELL IGNORED SOME B.S. LAW & WAS THERE TO HELP!!**
...Sad to say such laws are enacted due to ~all about me~ idiots that either dont know jack-diddly about such vessils ,dont care or seek &/or cause trouble without regard for others ,thus hindering for the majority of respectful/cautious folks the options to enjoy a groovy ride.
......NOAA ought stick to research rather than messin' with making law(s) -what knuckelhead gave em' that right??- ~BETTER YET!!~ ,they outta get with The Dept. of Wildlife & The USGS & NASA & do some REAL educateing of the general public on how Man Made Global Warming is utter crapp , a lie! ((yes ,Yes ,YES! we need to be better stewarts of the planet & watchful over our resources ,ecosystem ,pollutants ,litter & so on n on.,but without the fake nonsense all based on a quest for power & ca$hola))
..They ought let people know a bit about the truth behind Climate Change ,weather extreams on the uprise ,wildlife odditys & quirks & the effects from our solar system ,galaxy & beyond on this planet & the REAL cause/culprit of Climate Change & the other subjects I mentioned , its far more dreadful than cow fartz ,Thomas Edison's lightbulbs & fumes from the straightpipes on my vintage H.D. etc...etc...
Before thoes who have been suckelin' on the teet of political correctness ,fantasy ~so called~ science & utter B.S. start blatherin away try this nifty approach ,gather real scientific info & ...heres the tuff part , THINK , contemplate without preconcieved notions.
Google (since that an acceptable comfort zone ferr'ya) "NEMESIS"/n.a.s.a. (AKA; The Death Star ~ya gotta luv Hollywood's influances -SIGH!-) ,and "CELESTIAL ALIGENMENT"/Earth-Sun-Milkey Way .
..your gonna find that our problems are all related to gravitational pulls ,magnetism ,solar flares & an entire array of things not remotely related to man made anyflippen thing.
BTW; the artical was about a guy comming to the rescue of thoes in need , a hero!
Reply by mott1992 January 24, 2011 04:07pm PSTReport Abuse
YEH BRO DON'T CALL MEH NO DANG TREE-HUGGER!! lol
Reply by sergio q 1 January 24, 2011 05:35pm PSTReport Abuse
Ohhh-my , never never mott1992 ...
They, (the tree-hugger types) ,usually identify themselves with pride & diluted by lies arrogance ,there far more enlightened than guys like me.,,(and far too often sling a few snotty comments N ninny@$$ names to folkes like me not acceptant of the lie & truly offended that I might try and share insight with em' ...usually not prone to contemplateing any other concept(s) and, as if on que, regurtating the same ole' chants , fantasy science & perversions of the facts that led to there un-researched illusion in the 1st place.... truly convinced in there 1/2 dozen or so points.) ....or , ever so rarely, keep silent confused that there might be inkelings of truth presented by one who opposes there soundtrack on loop mode views.
,, would you be one that aint buyen that M/M Global Warming gibberish & lets em' rave on?? ~OR~ one of them wonderious people that grabz a branch from the embraced tree and pokes & taunts at the hugger repeatedly ta watch em wiggle as if mateing with the beloved tree till you see a bit-o-sumthinn dribbeling dow the trunk??
;-}
Posted by aps January 23, 2011 01:49pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Noaa should not be allowed to make or institue laws or rules. Non of the people working at Noaa are elected by the people, therefore should not be allowed to in-act laws.
Too much government and too many individuals allowed to tell us, the people paying taxes, what we can and cannot do.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:02pm PSTReport Abuse
that is exactly right so if you want to go surfing and kill youself that is on you........ i mean really?
Reply by mott1992 January 23, 2011 03:54pm PSTReport Abuse
sasquatchbob, you and I are going to be best friends =]]. amen brotha to all your wise words
Reply by dblack27 January 23, 2011 04:13pm PSTReport Abuse
pak, So your saying the Gov should ban driving cars? I mean, if you want to go drive one and kill yourself or someone else thats is on you..... I mean Really?? LOL
Reply by legal January 23, 2011 04:18pm PSTReport Abuse
A Lawsuit can be filed against NOAA just like the Newport Beach (Bay Island) residents filed against The Coastal Commission.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/local/la-me-newport-bridge-20100806
Organizations like NOAA typically lack authority & /or jurisdiction. According to rule of law these types of organizations are unconstitutional.
However; its not our fight unless somebody retains our office..
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 04:27pm PSTReport Abuse
people are much safer in a car than surfing we have individual insurance to protect ourselves and those around us. I here more people die in car accedents than on the waves open your brains people are you saying there are just as many people surfing as people driving now that's funny so I guess if each surfer wants to by surfer insurance go have a blast
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 05:36pm PSTReport Abuse
who else would it be on dblack27 i mean really
Reply by holeshot 14 January 23, 2011 06:01pm PSTReport Abuse
You have to understand that we all expect the government to bail us out. If you light your fire place and didn't have the chimney cleaned and have a fire you expect the government to come to the rescue you. If you drive careless and have a wreck you expect the government to come to your rescue. What about snow skiing and mountain climbing should this be banned also? These guys doing the surf rescue cost the government (all of us) nothing and we all blame the people out surfing. And just for the record I don't surf and never have, but let people enjoy life. That's why I work, to enjoy life doing what I like.
Reply by holeshot 14 January 23, 2011 06:01pm PSTReport Abuse
You have to understand that we all expect the government to bail us out. If you light your fire place and didn't have the chimney cleaned and have a fire you expect the government to come to the rescue you. If you drive careless and have a wreck you expect the government to come to your rescue. What about snow skiing and mountain climbing should this be banned also? These guys doing the surf rescue cost the government (all of us) nothing and we all blame the people out surfing. And just for the record I don't surf and never have, but let people enjoy life. That's why I work, to enjoy life doing what I like.
Reply by holeshot 14 January 23, 2011 06:01pm PSTReport Abuse
You have to understand that we all expect the government to bail us out. If you light your fire place and didn't have the chimney cleaned and have a fire you expect the government to come to the rescue you. If you drive careless and have a wreck you expect the government to come to your rescue. What about snow skiing and mountain climbing should this be banned also? These guys doing the surf rescue cost the government (all of us) nothing and we all blame the people out surfing. And just for the record I don't surf and never have, but let people enjoy life. That's why I work, to enjoy life doing what I like.
Reply by holeshot 14 January 23, 2011 06:02pm PSTReport Abuse
You have to understand that we all expect the government to bail us out. If you light your fire place and didn't have the chimney cleaned and have a fire you expect the government to come to the rescue you. If you drive careless and have a wreck you expect the government to come to your rescue. What about snow skiing and mountain climbing should this be banned also? These guys doing the surf rescue cost the government (all of us) nothing and we all blame the people out surfing. And just for the record I don't surf and never have, but let people enjoy life. That's why I work, to enjoy life doing what I like.
Reply by holeshot 14 January 23, 2011 06:02pm PSTReport Abuse
You have to understand that we all expect the government to bail us out. If you light your fire place and didn't have the chimney cleaned and have a fire you expect the government to come to the rescue you. If you drive careless and have a wreck you expect the government to come to your rescue. What about snow skiing and mountain climbing should this be banned also? These guys doing the surf rescue cost the government (all of us) nothing and we all blame the people out surfing. And just for the record I don't surf and never have, but let people enjoy life. That's why I work, to enjoy life doing what I like.
Reply by jrsporto January 23, 2011 09:25pm PSTReport Abuse
Holeshot 14
You are right on the money. Maybe it's time we start being a free nation again where people take some personal responsibility. Quit looking for a bailout. Unless you like your life being run by the government. In that case move somewhere like Europe. All of you do gooder self righteous "I know what's best for you" types should just leave. Those who enjoy the freedom to live your life without the intrusion of the Federal Government or whatever regulatory agency that sucks your wallet dry should stay. Then we can start voting out these power hungry progressives that look to ruin our way of life. More power to the surfers. They know what's best for them. Let them decide. Not some agency.
Reply by legal January 24, 2011 04:07pm PSTReport Abuse
dcaron10, who was your, "do your research & get an education" comment aimed at? I received the comment in my inbox so I assume it was meant for me. My reply to you is this.. I have a computer science degree and a law degree. I have a legal practice in southern California, so I should not be lacking an education as you seem to conclude.
In regards to doing my research, I have done my research, while working for a quasi military / civilian agency that employed me with a top-secret "Q" clearance. NOAA based on my legal expertise along with other agencies such as the dept of treasury were organized and given certain powers by unconstitutional means. The same goes for many other Federal & State agencies. If you do any real research you will also learn that NOAA's scope of responsibility is not just with the water in the bay, they also monitor the atmospheric conditions such as the weather, or the deployment of enemy missiles, rockets, ect. Plus they relay data from our recon satellites to other agencies such as the NSA, CIA, the US Air Force & US Naval / Marine Corps. intelligence in Quantico VA. By the way thank you for pointing out my typo's, I didn't realize I wasn't in "spell check compliance" to scrutinize my web comments like I would my legal pleadings..
Reply by motocross04321 January 24, 2011 04:38pm PSTReport Abuse
Its Funny how all of these ignorant people get this social Darwinism rant going on about if your dumb enough to do that then you deserve to die, but in reality it applies to the economy as well. So why is it when somebody buys a car or house and gets screwed they fight to enact all these fairness laws on the market... Such hypocrites, you people need to stop talking because your thoughts are liable to get everyone killed one of these days...
Reply by legal January 24, 2011 06:27pm PSTReport Abuse
motocross04321
I agree with your comment about the getting screwed if you buy a car of house, unfortunately there are no such "fairness laws" (a bank bailout, changes in mortgage & credit card industry doesn't make it fair either), however; to some extent we do have "consumer protection regulations" but "regulations" are not rule of law. Statutes are the law, not silly regulations. The best thing to ask when somebody uses "regulations" against you, simply ask, "Under what authority & under what jurisdiction"? Then the burden of proof is on them, not you...
In this case it pays to be well versed in the process of buying a car or house. Most people buy a vehicle or home out of immediate need for transportation or housing. Because of the rush into acquiring a car or house, allot of things get missed in the process, which is why most people end up paying more for something that isn't worth the actual amount of money paid once the deal is closed. In buying a home, the preliminary title report and the inspection of the property are where you'll find all the flaws in the home if any. In buying a car you almost have to take the word of the salesperson at the dealership. I advise that you do some serious research before you buy anything. Also when ever possible avoid financing. My father who never had a credit card in his life had it right, "If you don't have the cash or gold, you can't afford it and if you can't afford it don't think about buying it!"
The liability issue you bring up in your last sentence is way out there. How in the world can thoughts get people killed? People "kill" people, not thoughts and certainly not guns. In the end it's always "people" who kill other people. Individual people are and always will be the deciding factor when it comes to murder, regardless of the method a person utilizes to murder another human being.
Posted by veronica foley January 23, 2011 02:03pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Hope this guy is alright and what a hero Ord was....it's always the bureaucrats who sit back and make illogical and dangerous rulings from the safety of their ivory towers!!
I have a close friend who was overrun by a speedboat when he was jetskiing (legally) within the boundaries...and where were the authorities when that happened??
Reply by nash_boston January 23, 2011 03:28pm PSTReport Abuse
There are pleny of other places to surf. These people knew the risks.
Reply by mmaas44 January 23, 2011 04:06pm PSTReport Abuse
You clearly don't get it!! Why would you comment on something that you know nothing about?
Reply by roy hauser January 23, 2011 09:14pm PSTReport Abuse
Hi, from Oregon, you know the job is dangerous when you paddle out into BIG SURF! The outcome could prove to be deadly for any one that challenges the ocean, were's the BILIBONG ODESSY?
Posted by lpr January 23, 2011 02:09pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
So why should a bunch of thrill-seeking delayed adolescents determine environmental policy for the rest of the sane population?
Reply by ralph demott January 23, 2011 02:12pm PSTReport Abuse
Never surfed, have you Ipr?
Reply by waves426 January 23, 2011 02:27pm PSTReport Abuse
well said Ralph...lpr has most likely only "surfed" the net. His exposure to what the sea offers is probably limited to Red Lobster Restaurant
Reply by joshuaalfaro77 January 23, 2011 02:31pm PSTReport Abuse
are rescue helicopters banned from national parks???? just throwing it out there...
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 02:37pm PSTReport Abuse
What does it matter if lpr surfs every Sunday or has never surfed in his/her life? He/she certainly shares the environment which gives lpr the right to voice an opinion.
In fact, I would say your comment even supports his point- why consider the needs of the few (surfers) over the needs of the many (anyone else in the hemisphere)?
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:08pm PSTReport Abuse
there is access to rescue helicopters over the sea.................. am i missing something here? it always amazed me when people risk their lives in the name of fun then when something happens blame everyone else how about not doing it in the first place, and if you do you understand what could happen!
Reply by scott wimmer January 23, 2011 03:16pm PSTReport Abuse
Well said Lynmarsh. Sounds to me you all think about yourselves not the environment. Comparing a rescue Helicopter is not even in the same field. One things for sure I had no Idea a Helicopters ran in the water,not to mention how many National Park visitors are killed by drunk out of control Helicopter pilots? Hummmmmm? Real food for thought.
Reply by gmpsupal January 23, 2011 03:21pm PSTReport Abuse
Jacob Trette provided the evidence that allowing wave runners will save lives... I haven't seen lpr or lynmarsh or pak provide any evidence that not having them there will save the environment? I love how people who have never surfed think for one second that they care more about the ocean than someone who does surf.
Reply by dale smith January 23, 2011 03:23pm PSTReport Abuse
Lynmarsh is just another who is emotionally driven to let logic and comon sense be eliminated for the sake of pointless liberal laws. I'm sure this nutjob is okay with the termination of water for the farmers out in the valley.
Reply by drholday70 January 23, 2011 03:26pm PSTReport Abuse
And just what needs of the many are we considering by NOT allowing a clean running 4 stroke wave runner to operate in the open ocean where they could save the lives of the few. is one life more worthy then the many? I grew up around the ocean, racing sailboats, surfing, bogie boarding, body surfing, snorkling, diving and much more. this is a place where given the proper courtesy, we can all coexist in each or our sporting desires while at the same time be available to help those in trouble if the time comes. I don't see how lpr or lynmarsh's comments support a valid argument as to why the NOAA ruling is a good one or why it should not be overturned. this incident that started the whole debate here shows good reason why they should rethink it. I would add that maybe imposing certain rules along with alowing them to be there to prevent an overwhelming presence of wave runners that would then become a dangerous obstacle for the surfers. joshuaalfaro77 makes a valid point......rescue helicopters havent been banned even though their noise scares wildlife. we recognized them as a necessity.
Reply by carole mitchell lewis January 23, 2011 03:26pm PSTReport Abuse
I can't see how a couple of wave runners can do any damage to the environment. I think having them available in order to help an injured surfer or swimmer and most likely save their lives is worth what little damage they would do.
The majority of these environmentalist go overboard with everything. I guess we are supposed to just sit at home and never use our cars because we are poluting the air. Don't take a shower because we are using too much water. Don't use our stove because it uses too much electricity. I guess we are just supposed to stop living because, God forbid, we might damage something in the invironment. Rather than worry about a couple of wave runners damaging the ocean they should be looking into a lot of other things that are causing a lot more damage than the wave runners are. I have 5 grandchildren so I'm definitely concerned about the environment, but lets not take it to the extreme. A lot of these environmentalist along with the ACLU, which has nothing to do with this subject, are a bunch of nut cases and bleeding hearts. My prayers are with the injured surfer and his family. I wish for him a complete and speedy recovery.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:40pm PSTReport Abuse
that's funny I didn't say anything about the health of the ocean. I was making a point you do what do, you get what you got........ if it is that unsafe stop doing....... it this is called personal responsibility
Reply by darkprincessj January 23, 2011 03:42pm PSTReport Abuse
I think that the main problem that the surfers are upset about is what everyone else should be looking at. Environment or not, this is a matter of safety. This I feel should be looked at again and hopefully the ban will be lifted. I feel that the safety of EVERYONE needs to be looked at. As for the helicopters...I see that comment too Scott...this is their way of saying, what if you were caught in a fire...would you want help right away....or when the fire was like right on your butt. I'd want it right away...this is what they are wanting, the same treatment. I see both sides, and I think that everyone should at least try too. I know it won't happen, but please...try!
Reply by ach3r0n January 23, 2011 03:53pm PSTReport Abuse
A lot of you idiots are missing the point. Most here are not demanding that someone else foot the bill for rescue. They are asking that the ban be lifted that prevents ANYONE from doing it, including those who do it simply because they want to.
Reply by sephiroth9191 January 23, 2011 04:19pm PSTReport Abuse
I have to say, some of the replys on this post are kind of stupid...for one...lpr...surfers are not trying to set polices, they are trying to enjoy themselves....the ocean is a part of this planet and thus we have a right to appreciate her in ANY WAY we want...the ban needs lifted enough said about that, but as long as there are morons out there who don't understand why someone wants to do something then that will not happen. You all need to look at yourselves in the mirror and think "When in my life have I ever went out and enjoyed myself just for the sake of fun?" I would wager that most of you (people in general, this part is not directed at anyone in particular) have never once done something dangerous in your lives....stop being so one sided and look at the world...everyone on the planet has a way of going out and thinking and coping with something...for many surfers that is what it's all about...those are soul surfers...and those that go out for the thrill...which is maybe 5% of the surfing community...that thrill is their way of escaping the world and its problems. So I ask you, would you still bash surfing even if it was made 100 times safer? ...that one IS directed at you lpr, and lynmarsh...no one is even talking about the environment...this is a discussion about how a photographer saved the lives of 2 surfers...and the ban that will most likely git him arrested even though he should be deemed a hero. the environment does belong to everyone...but at the same time no one. we only like to think that we can control it but if the planet wants you out of the way then you might as well come to terms with the fact you are not staying where your at. Stop being cowards and stand up for your life style but dont force it onto others because they dont want it...and most likely you will get knocked flat on your ass for it.
Reply by sadi hawkins January 23, 2011 04:26pm PSTReport Abuse
Typical response from someone who only cares about himself&no one else. gmpsupal, where do you get your scientific information?Do you pull it from the same place your head appears to be?Up your own arse...!
Surfing is fun,great exercise&dangerous,but if you think wave runners don't harm the environment,you really need to step away from the bong!
When taking part in a dangerous activity,I take the chance that I may not be helped if a rogue wave gets hold of me&I fully accept that. Its my life&I CHOSE to take part in a dangerous sport where help may not get to me in time.I do NOT want idiots on wave runners all over the place just on the off chance someone might need saved all while endangering the environment.
Those of you that claim to be surfers,yet in the same sentence you slam NOAA,wtf is wrong with you idiots?Are your brains so baked you've lost all common sense?Do most of you even know who&what NOAA does,don't answer that,it was rhetorical.I know you morons don't have a clue,you just want to run your mouths...
Do the world a service&shut up,go surf if you love it so much,but your "fun" isn't going to harm OUR planet!!!
Reply by teddy_fergason January 23, 2011 04:28pm PSTReport Abuse
Enviormentalist or surfer? Is that really the argument here? I mean some guy is illeagally out there taking pictures and saves some guys life. Thats the real story here guys. The guys a hero because he was braking some laws that were set there because the enviormentalists think that were polluting the water. I'm a surfer and a marine biologist I understand the straing that these wave runners put on the enviorment, and how in the way they are when your surfing...but the truth is, i'd rather have one of those out there to save me then to have them on shore being helpless. And yeah were risk seekers and adrenaline junkies as some of you would call us, but you don't get the feeling of being up on that wave. This is definitely more about keeping us surfers safe then the enviorment. I mean look at this, you said you want to keep the enviorment clean for everyone...cause your so concerned about people. Well us surfers are people, God bless the guy that was out there breaking the law and saving people.
Reply by darkprincessj January 23, 2011 04:58pm PSTReport Abuse
Oh Teddy I'm right there with you. He saved 2 men in this...and I am glad that he was out there illegally. If he hadn't, we probobly would have been talking about why this is bad because there were 2 people killed.
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 05:17pm PSTReport Abuse
Yeah Dale, I'm a "nutjob" because I point out that someone implying that only surfers should have the right to comment here would create a completely biased and unfair forum.
EVERYONE needs to eat to live. A few people choose to surf for *fun*. So I find your comparison very foolish.
Gmpsupal- I just love the way some surfers assume they love the ocean more than somebody who swims, kyaks, sails or lives next to it just because they choose to experience it on a board.
Sadie- you're exactly right.
Reply by internomad January 23, 2011 06:29pm PSTReport Abuse
The ones complaining about a few jet skis being environmentally harmful to the "Hemisphere" need to take take a trip to a Navy base and see all the sea life floating dead in the water from all the pollution. Furthermore, the ones complaining that a 4 stroke jet ski engine is environmentally unfriendly and get on here acting like they are environmentally conscious most likely have a gas guzzling carbon omitting SUV parked in their driveway that they fire up everyday burning 30 -40 gallons of gas as opposed to a jet ski fire up every once in a while burning 3-5 gallons of gas. Also they probably take a cruise on a cruiseliner that burns thousands of gallons of diesel further contributing to the emissions and yet have the audacity to claim that a jet ski is environmentally harmful. Its like comparing a scooter to a suv. the ones that make petty arguments that items such as jet skis are damaging are ones who don't own one and yet they won't complain about the other luxuries that they benefit from such as SUV's and big gas guzzling vehicles, nor will they complain about the ships that bring them their clothes and produce and fish to their markets and the trains and the 18 wheelers that bring things to them inn their neighborhood stores. Yet they want to argue that a few jet skis are environmentally unfriendly. Its amazing how some people justify their comments to be legitimately justifiable.
Reply by gmpsupal January 23, 2011 06:44pm PSTReport Abuse
Ok, someone please answer me this because maybe I was just upset that it seemed like some were implying that it would have been better if Jacob Trette had not been saved.
a) how can you possibly say that 2 or 3 wave runners (which would be more than enough to provide some safety) can cause more damage than a 30 foot wall of churning water?
b) what would be more harmful, one wave runner to save a mans life or however many vessels it would take to recover that mans body?
Also let me say I apologize for assuming I know anyone's background here, but so you know mine I'm a surfer and a helicopter pilot and I don't fly without checking NOAA's aviation weather reports so I truly appreciate what they do... all I'm saying is can we please just use a little common sense with some of these laws?
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 08:09pm PSTReport Abuse
Wow!! It's amazing how many people (this is directed at you sepiroth and internomad) read what I said...and got it completely wrong!!! When did I bash surfing? I think surfing is an awesome and (mostly) pollution free way to inter-act with the ocean! My *actual* comment was regarding ralph & waves implying lpr wasn't entitled to speak or enjoy the ocean because he didn't surf. This issue cannot be limited to the opinions only of surfers, any more than any issue should be decided by one special interest group.
And I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone give up surfing. Just that anyone surfing, para-sailing, mountain biking, spelunking ect... acknowledge their own responsibility for their safety when choosing to participate in these activities. I like to camp/hike in remote areas, but I cannot expect the government or any other agency, to rip up thousands of miles of land or level trees to lay phone lines in the event that I might need to call 911. I know the risks when I plan my trips and I pass on any areas that I think might be too dangerous. Sometimes that means I miss seeing something really beautiful...but that's life.
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 08:13pm PSTReport Abuse
So lynmarsh, you are saying that we should just let people die who decide that they want to participate in any sport that is dangerous and not as popular as other sports? All helicopters that go on rescue missions to save stranded climbers should stop operating? Forget about the thrill-seekers who want more than to just be a pencil pusher behind a desk? People who want to really feel what its like to live? We should just give up on these types of sports?
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 08:31pm PSTReport Abuse
Firstly, why should some rescue worker have to risk *their* life because someone else has decided they want to seek a "thrill"??
And...I just don't know how you got this interpretation since the first thing I said was "I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone give up surfing". But if you're expecting every lake, ocean, mountainside or forest to be patrolled at all times for your safety, you're asking the impossible. There are going to be areas that (for whatever reason) are not staffed for this kind of thing. In that situation, you need to make a choice. Take your own safety precautions & go, or choose another location.
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 08:38pm PSTReport Abuse
Well a rescue worker is trained, and gets paid to risk his life to save others. Like you say, its his choice.
I'm not saying that every river, lake, or area needs to be patrolled. But this type of event only happens 4 or 5 times a year, why can't they allow a few pwc in the water for these types of events. Whats so wrong with that? If you were stranded while hiking, you wouldn't want there to be a search effort for you? You would just expect to die in the woods? I don't think so. If you were ever put in a situation like that, you would expect someone to come looking for you.
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 08:55pm PSTReport Abuse
I might *like* someone to come looking for me. But I know there are situations where I could not reasonably expect it and I would be on my own in a life or death situation. That's why, when it's too risky, I find a safer trail, ect. Having a cousin in the Coast Guard has made me very conscious of not taking unnecessary risks and therefore causing a rescue worker to have to take one.
Well, to the NOAA it poses an environmental risk to have those vehicles in the water. Maybe they felt it would weaken their stance on the matter if they made an exception for the event.
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 09:02pm PSTReport Abuse
Okay I agree with some of what you're saying about being more cautious. But it's human nature to try things that scare the s*** out of you. These type of sports won't ever go away, they are only going to get bigger. So why not save lives now and prepare for these sports in the future. Rather than waiting until they get big to the point where people are dieing daily, then try to put safety measures in place. By then it will be to late.
Then how did the guy get into Mavericks on his pwc, clearly NOAA is not serious about patrolling the area and keeping them out, which actually saved one life, maybe more.
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 09:21pm PSTReport Abuse
But don't you think if these sports become safer & more regulated it would take the scare out of it & send people looking for something bigger & badder to get into? After all, it's the risk that creates the thrill.
Maybe he got lucky. When we canoe/kayak we are required by the DNR to carry a personal flotation device within the boat. 80-90% of the time we don't get checked but sometimes we do. They can't cover the entire bay, so it's just about being in the right place at the right time.
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 09:30pm PSTReport Abuse
I never said anything about regulations. Yes it's the risk that creates the thrill, but knowing someone could save you if you makes it no less risky, there is still a risk of injury or death.
It's not about the right place at the right time if it is a scheduled event. In years past, before this law was put in place there were people at these events willing to put their lives at risk to save others who were taking the same risks by going out and surfing these waves. It was a way to provide great images for magazines so everybody around the world could witness the progression of surfing while at the same time providing a small amount of safety. I see nothing wrong with that.
Reply by clydes glu factory January 23, 2011 09:31pm PSTReport Abuse
to everyone complaining about the Navy.
Do you even know what the Navy does. Yes we pollute the water, but not by design or by intent. without the navy millions of people would be out of jobs, and on top of that, we are the premier fighting force on the planet. The US is 100% more safe due to the Navy and your complaining about the pollution we cause? there has to be sacrifice to gain things, and generally, Navy ships are incredibly clean compared to equivalent ships not paid for and operated by the United States government.
oh yea, also. surfing is fun, not surfing also can be fun. if someone chooses to surf, good for them, im sure they enjoy it. far be it from us to condemn them for this simple act of stress release. also on that subject, wave runners are fun, and can also save lives. if the government determines that they are not allowed somewhere, then they aren't allowed there. maybe it's a stupid rule, maybe its not. all i know is that it is still a law, and we are honor bound to follow it. good the photographer for saving a life. he still broke the law. surfer's go out to this area to surf, and have fun. they know the risks, and this law is not hidden, so when they go out, they know that it's illegal for anyone to be there such as this photographer was. therefore, repeal the law or don;t repeal it. that is up to the people that have been put in a position of power. our place is to inform them or their retarted decision. and then to follow it.
Reply by jrsporto January 23, 2011 09:45pm PSTReport Abuse
The way I have been reading this is that the surfers want the PWCs to be able to rescue them in case of a problem. But because of some lobbying group a regulatory agency of the Federal government has banned their use. That sounds ridiculous. They just keep chipping away at freedom loving people. It's not the governments responsibility to protect these surfers from what they like to do. They are not intruding on your lifestyle. And the people that are willing to help them if they get into trouble want to do it. Let them enjoy their sport. And let them decide how to protect themselves. I like to golf. I could get hit in the head by another golf ball. I know this risk. Should a Federal agency come in and say that golfing can no longer be played with hard covered balls. It's too dangerous and they don't fit into the environment very well if lost. Watch out cause this kind of garbage for laws is just waiting in the wings.
Reply by dan densley January 23, 2011 10:56pm PSTReport Abuse
I am just sitting back here amazed at the ignorance that abounds in these types of discussions. Listen up people. A man was just injured and potentially maimed for the rest of his life-if he pulls out. We all did not want that to happen. And yet it did. Maybe it could have been avoided. Shouldn't we look at this more closely and determine if it could have been avoided?. I agree that we should not just allow for every single surfer who wants to get towed in to surf anywhere anytime. That would be a nightmare.
I have been in the water next to idiots on PWCs and it is so disgusting and offensive. However, we're talking mavs here which only breaks good and clean what, maybe 10 times a year? Come on, give them a bleeping permit for the day. Make it possible for this to be avoided in the future.
I know and understand and honor those who try to protect our marine habitat which is already in jeopardy. We should not "throw the baby out with the bath water" as they say.
There is a way for us to continue to protect our oceans but not make stupid and life threatening decisions that could be avoided.
And we need to continue our tree hugging protection of our marine sanctuary as well. Remember we are all much more akin to one another than we think. Don't let politics pollute our inherent similarities.
Posted by ralph demott January 23, 2011 02:11pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Once again, big daddy government stepping into something they know nothing about. NOAA, get your monkey paws out of it and get out of the way of people who know what the hell they're doing.
Reply by nash_boston January 23, 2011 03:29pm PSTReport Abuse
There are lots of other places to surf. These surfers knowingly risked their lives. What a bunch of losers.
Reply by logic_master January 23, 2011 04:00pm PSTReport Abuse
Nash you are a typical liberal coward who would curl up and cry when faced with a difficult life saving challenge. You are a a nobody and if you are even remembered it will be for your cowardice here on this planet.
Reply by internomad January 23, 2011 07:06pm PSTReport Abuse
Nash has no clue to the concept of living, shelter them self in their pathetic little bubbles all day long sitting on a couch watching others life their lives and ridicule them. So according to them, I suppose everyone should stop surfing, scuba diving, cliff diving, parchuting, hang gliding, rock climbing, bungee jumping and so on. Anyone that does these activities knows the risks and accepts them, what right is it for others to determine what another human should or shouldn't do with their life. If they choose to risk their own life for a thrill, then that is on them, it is not harming or threatening other persons life.
there are more people robbed, raped then stabbed or shot and killed simply risking their life by walking the streets of Washington DC, Bronxs and other major cities then die of any of the above stated thrill seeking sports.
In the world of NASH, I suppose everyone should never do anything but stay at home on their couch,
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 08:29pm PSTReport Abuse
Nash, do you even surf? Have you ever done anything more thrilling than making it to the gas station just before you run out of gas? You are a typical sheltered person that doesn't deserve the title of man. There is more to life than waking up, going to the office, coming home and going to bed then doing it all over again. Some people actually like to live their lives.
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 08:44pm PSTReport Abuse
I can't believe the small minded idea repeated over & over here that if you're not surfing, you can't possibly be doing anything worth while & your life must be a waste!! Maybe Nash has a life full of family & friends. Maybe he plays the guitar, rides horses and takes long walks in the country. Maybe he volunteers every Sunday at a soup kitchen. Is that not a life worth living?
If surfing, hang gliding or white water rafting gives you joy- that's wonderful!! But you're a very foolish person if you think it's the only thing worth doing.
That being said, there was certainly no reason to refer to all surfers as losers, so I understand your anger there.
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 08:52pm PSTReport Abuse
I'm not saying that he doesn't have a life worth living. Im just saying that some like to live theie lives at an extreme level. Why should we condemn them to death by saying that if something were to go wrong, we won't help you because what you like to do is a little more dangerous than the norm?
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 09:02pm PSTReport Abuse
No, we should not be condemn all extreme sports enthusiasts to death but we have to accept that in some areas we must swim, climb or surf at our own risk. That does not mean if someone got into trouble there would be not rescue effort made. In fact, I'm sure that even if this photographer had not happened to be there to help this surfer, there would have been some rescue effort made once they realized he was missing. But to expect the authorities to be providing something they've clearly stated they won't and then get angry about it just isn't fair.
Imo, the event planner should have chosen another location that did allow for more safety precautions.
Reply by brian88 January 23, 2011 09:08pm PSTReport Abuse
But you realize by the time they would have realized he was gone, he would have been dead. But the authorities don't need to provide it. Thats not the point. The point is that they need to allow others, the people willing to go out on pwc to protect these surfers.
That's the problem, there are only a certain number of big wave spots like this in the world, and by not allowing the pwc in the water, there is one less safe big wave place to surf.
Reply by jrsporto January 23, 2011 09:48pm PSTReport Abuse
Excellent points Brian88
Reply by sclocal831 January 23, 2011 10:12pm PSTReport Abuse
lymmarsh, I'm guessing you're not familiar with Maverick's Point, the surfing conditions there, and why its considered some of the best in the world. The "event planner" does not chose "another location that did allow for more safety precautions" because of the unusual sea floor. Due to the unusual geography beneath the ocean, waves at this point crest unusually large for the area, attracting big wave surfers. Unfortunately, this also results in waves breaking with tremendous force. Amateur surfing at this point is absolutely unheard of. Not all big wave surfers are even willing to surf in this condition. However, the few that are willing, and the fewer that are surf in the Invitational, should still be allowed to have access to various forms search & rescue if they should so need it BEFORE its becomes search & recovery.
Reply by ac96822 January 24, 2011 07:28am PSTReport Abuse
Well said! I'm from two islands - and the last being O'ahu where I had lived for 13 years. All that I can say is that no matter what, people will surf, and so imposing bans or sanctioning how the sport is practiced is not going to matter at all. However, what we do once we accept that truth is to allow a preventative measure instead of relying on a reactive one (and those guys were lucky Ord bypassed NOAA's insipid rule, or this article would've had a much different tone...) So the surfers know the risks, so that means they deserve to die should they get in over their heads? Let's ban seatbelts from cars.
Surfers are not going to stay where it's safe; simply, they're going to be where the 'good' waves are (glassy, perfect barrels, or big walls of water). Dictating who should or shouldn't be in place to rescue is ridiculous. The way it is in Hawai'i - there is a brother-/sister-hood amongst all those that love the ocean. There is no direction or order as to who will be there, but an understanding. No one has to be told out there whether to be a good samaritan or how to place value on human life when you know it's on the line for a mutual love.
Posted by joan martin January 23, 2011 02:12pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
NOAA, Let's get real about safety.
Reply by jennifer trantham January 23, 2011 06:41pm PSTReport Abuse
I am the only one has seen a sign "at your own risk". I don't think it is a matter so much as safety but money. Are you volunteering to go out and inspect every wave runners for leaks and ban them if they have them to protect the ocean, or go and do clean up and PAY for clean up if an incident happens out in the ocean? No hands raised didn't think so. No one wants to pay for inspections or oversight or clean up,that is what it gets down to, and if they can eliminate and save some money by telling people not to surf there or by your own risk they answer solved. I know I don't want to pay so a select few can have some fun. When there are safer places but they CHOOSE to surf there. We all have choices in life...
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 08:21pm PSTReport Abuse
Jennifer, I think you make an excellent point. It would take a lot of man power and resources to regulate every public beach, swimming hole, hiking path ect...out there. If someone decides something is really worth doing, it's worth doing it at their own risk.
Reply by beerjew January 24, 2011 12:43am PSTReport Abuse
lynmarsh, You've said the same thing in every post, and it's retarded! NOT ONE person has said that it's the Govs job to protect the surfers and other extreme sport patrons. There are people who VOLUNTEER AND ENJOY SAVING HUMAN LIFE. Why not let them be there to do so? Who the hell suggested that every "public beach, hiking path, ect." should have a Gov't employee watching over it? That's not the arguement at all, genius. Let the people who want to be out there protecting do so. And to Jennifer, We all drive a car at our own risk right? So F anyone who gets hurt right? They knew the risks when they started the car. You two are ridiculous and pretty cold. What's wrong with some people? Thank God that Mr. Ord was out there and this silly rule didn't get anyone killed... Not that lynmarsh or jennifer would have cared much.
Reply by jennifer trantham January 24, 2011 07:09am PSTReport Abuse
It is not a matter of caring or not caring emotions are taken out of the picture, it is irrelevent what I think or do not think I never metioned how I feel and you do not know me so how would you know? it is a matter of choices if you choose to do something you choose to suffer the reprecussions. If you go into the rain without an umbrella and get wet do you stand in the rain and say shit I am wet or do you take an umbrella for protection. Life is all about choices. If you knowingly do a sport where you could be killed do you still do it because you enjoy it or do you choose a different location a safer on where it would be less dangerous, but the waves would be less?? Life is about choices. Yes every time we do start our engines, or walk out our front door we make the choice because we have to go somewhere, yes there are other ways of getting there that are slower but we choose to go by car and we know what could happen. Everytime we open our eyes we should be thanking the Lord we did. We could be killed by a blood clot in the brain at any time. As for the volunteers good for them but there are just not enough to save everyone at each moment. You missed my point who will oversee everything and be in charge and PAY for everything??? I don't want to pay for something I do not do or pay more taxes .. Making sure there is enough manpower and accidents are cleaned up to standards so wildlife is not killed and environment is protected. I am all about people and outdoors but leave the outdoors better than you found it, RIGHT??
Posted by joan martin January 23, 2011 02:15pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Have you ever surfed here in the winter time? I'm a surfer and California native, and I know these waves.Blocking this is endangering lives. Put some rescue guys on skis out there on your bill or shut up about the ones that go out there and rescue on thier own. Seriously.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:19pm PSTReport Abuse
how about surf where it is a little safer or try this one..............how about don't surf at all....!!!!!!!! that's crazy right? no ones going to mess up your fun right? sooooo DEAL WITH THE CONCEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!!! My goodness really it's on you what you do with your life some people think its fun to set off firecrackers in there hands but there are no firecracker patrol waiting for them to blow off there hands come on now
Reply by gmpsupal January 23, 2011 03:25pm PSTReport Abuse
Let's think about that pak, are there any laws banning a firecracker patrol... no.... bad analogy.
Reply by nash_boston January 23, 2011 03:30pm PSTReport Abuse
They knew the risks when they chose to surf there.
Reply by stephanie wolfe January 23, 2011 03:39pm PSTReport Abuse
this was a venue! That means they weren't doing it for fun it was a surfing event.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:54pm PSTReport Abuse
my friend gmpsupal I am sure there would be a ban on firecracker patrols if they really exsited, and that is my point there should not be extra patrols for surfers we have rescue teams paid by the state and local law enforcement to rescue not just surfers but anyone in need. in the water when you know there is limited safety measures think about what you are doing and know the risks....... venue or fun it's your life
Reply by larry darlington January 23, 2011 03:57pm PSTReport Abuse
Right. It is a King's sport reserved for the Hawaiian Islands exclusively. Forget us peons. Why should We decide what is fun for Us, after all, this is only Our country. Government is only supposed to secure Our rights, which, by the way are given to Us by God, not government, not decide what Our rights are or turn everything into "privileges," and then tax everything because they have everyone snowed into believing they are the slave they have been taught they are.
Reply by will peterson January 23, 2011 04:14pm PSTReport Abuse
Surfing is a sport not a childish way of life. Um... no referees at a foot ball game.Um... no umpires at a baseball game.Um...no refs at a wrestling match...Might we consider surfing a sport. Give protection!
Reply by john fisher January 23, 2011 04:18pm PSTReport Abuse
to Nash_Boston and Pak...talk to Jacob one day down the line if he recovers and you will change your mind. It seems so inherently obvious that a life saving jet ski is necessary for these surfers. And to suggest to "surf somewhere else" or "just don't surf at all" is ridiculous. Mavericks is one of a kind and there's nothing like it. Do you really think these surfers (the majority likely live to surf big waves) are going to simply go somewhere else or quit all together?
They should add an exception to the law and allow jetskis in dangerous surf spots only.
Reply by richard merks January 23, 2011 04:34pm PSTReport Abuse
Life is full of risks from the moment your get out of bed, you want to play it safe then stay in bed, I've done nearly everything you can do in and on water and yeah I've come close to putting my life at risk on a couple of occasions but that doesn't mean it was wrong for me to do it, I've been to beaches that where well patrolled and others not at all but those guys and girls on jet ski's where always there for one reason or another, it's not their job to save us, It's just human nature, that's why we learn CPR, that's why we have Crossing guards to protect our children from idiots who can't wait 2 minutes while your 7 year old crosses the road (how's that for an analogy?)
I've surfed at Glenelg Beach in South Australia to see my best friend 10 feet away loose his arm to a great white, an act of nature, if not for my quick thinking he would have lost a lot more.
So we all have a choice, wrap yourselves up in bubble wrap and never leave your bed room or get out and have fun, I'll be 46 in less then 2 weeks and I'm here for a good time, not a long time.
Pak, get a clue and buy bubble wrap
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 04:42pm PSTReport Abuse
no ridiculous is putting your life in danger. john fisher. If I where to talk to him I would say............ I hope you are not going back there, but he probobly will and that is fine. if we make exceptions for what is obviously a poor choice (and poor choices do exist). this world would be crazier than it already is.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 04:55pm PSTReport Abuse
richard merks I don't need bubble wrap I am 38 yrs old my friend and have traveled the world I have done things eaten things and swam in stuff that would make your skin crawl and loved every minute of it I am going to say this for the last time (or maybe not) NOBODY SAID IT WAS WRONG FOR YOU TO DO YOUR FUN ACTIVITIES.......... NOBODY SAID STOP SURFING.............What I am saying is you do these things at your own risk and yes if you are next to someone in need cpr would be nice and yes people are generaly helpful when it comes to saving ones life but to lift a ban that was set into place for whatever reason---- they could have set that ban in motion because they didn't want the water cluttered or they are trying to stop pollution or it just looked messy I don't care why they did it the fact is they did it. so when you take your surf board out there and think I am surfing anyway there not going to stop me these waves are great know you now take the risk you have stepped away from safety and you need to take full responsibility for yourself
Reply by melissa pilgrim January 23, 2011 05:28pm PSTReport Abuse
So what about the kids that die playing football or have a heartattack on the basketball court? most people wouldnt consider football a life or death sport but people have died from playing it right? they have ref's they have dr's on the sidelines they have defibulators on the sidelines? am i wrong? so some kid dies playing football so now we should tell every other kid NOPE you cant play football its too dangerous, or its your life play at your own risk? that is OBSURD!
i am personally not a surfer but know plenty of them and it is amazing to watch, and we need to help keep them safe just like we say keep race car drivers safe. most people think that is a sill and dangerous sport but they choose to do it. so just b/c its dangerous we should say well its your life if you die you knew what you were doing? THAT IS ALSO OBSURD!!!
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 05:57pm PSTReport Abuse
when surfing brings in the kind of revenue that football does and even race care drivers do. then surfers could afford the extra safety measures that racers and football revenue pay for....... again nobody said tell every other kid " NOPE".............. NO ONE SAID STOP SURFING NO ONE SAID GIVE UP YOUR DREAMS WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND MELISSA PILGRIM. Yes when you are a kid you do play at your own risk or are you trying to tell me that the teenaged mighty mights have the same safety measures as the miami dolphins I don't think so..... yes when it is dangerous that is exactly what you should say "it's your life if you die you knew what you where doing" so who's responsible for your life since it is obsurd to think you are responsible for yourself ................obsurd?
Reply by beerjew January 24, 2011 01:07am PSTReport Abuse
Perfectly stated Richard Merks. Pak i'm surprised to read that you are a man; up until then I was pretty sure you were a little girl. And a considerably cold one at that. You say F the surfers because they know the risks and surf anyway, right? Driving down the road is statistically much more dangerous than surfing, and we all know those risks. So F anyone injured/ killed on the road? What's wrong with you? The ban is silly. It was made to protect surfers and does the opposite. Thank God that the photographer was there and no one lost their life due to a stupid law... Not that pak would give a damn.
Posted by morro bay hunter January 23, 2011 02:16pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
While it is true Personal Watercraft are banned throughout the sanctuary, there are exceptions where permits are issued to qualified trained operators. Mavericks is one of those locations where permits may be obtained. Please report news responsibly bu obtaining all the facts, not just those that make your story controversial.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:20pm PSTReport Abuse
very informative like that!
Posted by common scents January 23, 2011 02:20pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Looks like a finalist candidate for the Darwin Award. If God had meant man to surf 25 foot waves, he would've made 'em dolphins.
Reply by tstarrca1 January 23, 2011 03:44pm PSTReport Abuse
Yes, and if God had meant for man to fly he would've made 'em with wings. Stupid comment.
Reply by melissa pilgrim January 23, 2011 05:32pm PSTReport Abuse
I believe the article said they waves werent that big and most the guys were trying to NOT surf these waves, trying to get out of the way, but way to read the story J.A!
Reply by melissa pilgrim January 23, 2011 05:32pm PSTReport Abuse
I believe the article said they waves werent that big and most the guys were trying to NOT surf these waves, trying to get out of the way, but way to read the story J.A!
Posted by waves426 January 23, 2011 02:20pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Prayers for Jacob and his friends,family and fellow surfers.Thanks for takin care of business Ord....DROP THE BAN.....
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:22pm PSTReport Abuse
stop surfing where you know you may incounter a 20 foot wave
Reply by erin blumer January 23, 2011 04:22pm PSTReport Abuse
It's ENcounter. Not INcounter. Jeez, spell things right and you won't look like such a fool.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 05:01pm PSTReport Abuse
even i can make a mistake I have a job for you erin blumer I have located several hundred mistakes in spelling and punctuation you have such a keen eye why don't you go find them all. since this is what interests you moost ( I mean most sorry about that )
Reply by andre abram January 23, 2011 08:25pm PSTReport Abuse
lol
Reply by erin blumer January 24, 2011 12:06pm PSTReport Abuse
There's a difference between typos and not knowing how to spell. Typos are fine. They happen. Bad spelling just makes you look uneducated, whether or not that happens to be the case. If you're going to try to make a solid argument, knowing how to spell generally makes your posts a little more credible.
Posted by joubaur January 23, 2011 02:22pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
How about a billion dollar lawsuit against NOAA?
Ought to be able to replace them with something better when we have their financing.
Reply by godknowsbest January 23, 2011 03:06pm PSTReport Abuse
You better pray for Jacob, player poser JOE---Y, and others that he lives, has no brain injury or other neurological brain injuries, or any other permanent physical or other bodily injuries! There WILL definately BE a lawsuit with NOAA settling up and giving a statement they are not at fault! Men's experience and research CAN be MORE correct than an entitity like NOAA. Laws aren't ALWAYS correct. That's when they MUST be changed for the good of the people.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:24pm PSTReport Abuse
try not putting yourself in harms way doesn't that sound like the way to go
Reply by mikala January 23, 2011 03:36pm PSTReport Abuse
Well said!
Reply by denise gentry atkisson January 23, 2011 04:22pm PSTReport Abuse
So if you are driving down the road, on a pleasure trip, and you get T-boned by an 18 wheeler with a drunk/high driver its your fault. You put yourself in harms way when you piled the wife & kiddies into the car to go to Micky-D's?
Reply by ann scarborough January 23, 2011 05:02pm PSTReport Abuse
No Denise, You put yourself in harms way when you ran the red light that resulted in you getting T-boned by an 18 wheeler. I do understand your point though. Things can happen reguardless where you are and what you are doing. I once fell and broke my ankle one morning just because I was getting out of bed to use the restroom. Didn't trip, wasn't drunk, no reason other than I just fell. Does that mean that stupid bans on peeing before you have been awake for more than 5 minutes needs to be made? Pak is just a moron. And obviously a boring one. And BTW...truck drivers can't be high or drunk. We have to much crap to deal with and to much riding on our license to do that. Tired maybe...high/drunk should never be a worry.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 06:15pm PSTReport Abuse
no denise but you don't go to bed thinking i can't wait to pee in the morning ( or maybe you do ) whatever the case if you see oil and rollerskates on your floor you are not going to close your eyes for the thrill of maybe not hitting them on the way to pee. (or maybe you do) so no you aren't getting a pee patrol neither. the point is what you would have done by braking your ankle is an accident, what surfers (or people doing any dangerous activity) are doing is risky................ going to pee has much less risks than riding a 25 foot wave. (or for you maybe not) idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by richardeckert January 23, 2011 02:28pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
I went out in the swell of 1975 at Rat Beach just south of Torrance near Haggertys,except it is sand. Was 25 foot that day. As I managed to paddle out on my homeade 7 foot pin tail I was good on, I deduced that I could not paddle fast enough to catch the wave. Ok, I will belly board in. So I paddle and am engulfed in white water and am being sucked up the face of the wave and can't see, so I wrap my arms and legs aroung the board, now I am going end over end and let go. Now its getting washing machined, down into the water, felt like 20 feet. Wave passes and I forearm swimm because it all foam and which way up was, I could not feelm gravity. Finnally break the surface, big breath, and oh boy another wave coming! I get washed up on the shore twice as close to the cliff as normal and there is my board. I think I was the only person who went out on any beach that day. I never go out past 5 foot ever, besides I live in Boise. My B.K. 9ft sits idel. Being rescued near rocks is essential, stupid eco freaks making rules. Smart ones are a good idea.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:28pm PSTReport Abuse
how about make a rule for yourselves stop putting youselves in the situation to be killed or seriously injured now that's an idea
Reply by darkprincessj January 23, 2011 03:52pm PSTReport Abuse
Now see Pak all I'm seeing on these from you is negativity against the surfers! Yes...they choose to do it...but do you do anything at all? Do you smoke, drink, drive home, ski, swim, do anything but sit at home? If so then you are doing exactly what they do by going out there. You take your life into your own hands every day when you leave your own house. In a car you can be killed, or with flying...now yes, they do this for a sport, but if you ski then do you think thats bad? Where are the ski patrol...oh yeah...riding snow mobiles around to save people that hurt themselves or get stuck in an avalanche! Don't go off on the surfers for finding a hobby they like and are good at!
Reply by ach3r0n January 23, 2011 03:56pm PSTReport Abuse
pak is obviously an uneducated buffoon. I am certain he drives despite the fact that the odds of dying in a car accident are many, many times higher than dying in a surfing accident or engaging in any other sport. Unfortunately, his hypocrisy prevents him from viewing the situation objectively.
Reply by darkprincessj January 23, 2011 03:58pm PSTReport Abuse
Totally in agreement with you Ach. glad someone sees it as I do. This person has simply dissed on every single post I've read that is FOR the ban being LIFTED...or on surfers in general. It just annoys me...I mean I live in IA and I see how it is. Driving right now isn't safe...but we still do it.
Reply by anthony williams January 23, 2011 04:00pm PSTReport Abuse
pak you keep posting on here that people should not be doing anything dangerous or seek any thrills. how are some of the greatest wonders in the world found? people climbed the mountains, they dived into the reefs, they rapelled into unkown caves! all that could very easily kill them! plus the point of live isnt just to go to your desk job in a prius do your mindless work for your 8 hours then go home in your prius and watch tv then go to bed only to repeat the same the next day! the point is to be the best you can be. the feeling ov being proppelled by a wave is something no one can accurately describe. the feeling of flying through the air on a motorcycle or going over 200 mph in a super car its just out of this world and often inspires people to both take their bodies and machines further creating new boundaries for themselvs and new technology for the world. also while the enviroment is indeed in need of our protection, the ice caps are not going to completely melted by humans alone. the world is constantly changing and heading towards a sort of warm age. now are we speeding this process up a bit yes we are but we wont ever stop it. this earth is more powerful then any man made force out there. and if the government would just leave the people alone we would find a way to have both the pwc's and clean beaches because that benefits everyone. when the government makes these laws they hamper the development of new technology that could solve the problem.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 04:04pm PSTReport Abuse
I am not negative about surfers...... I think surfing can be fun and entertaining, but when it comes to safety and personal responsibility, Fun and entertainment are not as important......... this man could have died.......He new good and well what he was getting into and now people want to point the finger at others, it just amazing to me. skiing brings in revenue which allows for security to be paid for by the resort in which you choose to ski. if you where to decide to go skiing on your own in the hills behind your house there aren't any "safety patrols' for you there you would rely on the local agencies to help no extra patrols get it
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 04:13pm PSTReport Abuse
if you could only hear yourselves "if government would leave us alone" except when I need them to save my drowning butt then it's ok. and I never said people shouldn't do anything dangerous. what I said was that if you do know that the responsibility is with you. when people found the "great wonders of the world" as one had mentioned they did not have local, state, or gov. run protection. now let me say there is a need for the services they provide, but if you are in an area that you know has little to no safety measures would that not kinda be your own fault if something happens. by all means have a blast do it at your own risk
Reply by meatballkiller January 23, 2011 04:45pm PSTReport Abuse
hey pak do you leave the house or apt. which ever you know you do that at you own risk but there are police and fireman and emts to help you when you get in to touble so give it dude we all know the risks and we pay taxes to help cover the costs of safety do you were your seat belt cuz you know its a law right
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 05:06pm PSTReport Abuse
yes I own 2 homes if you must know and a great big suv My seat belt is always on. so if you put youseatbelt on when you get on a surfboard are there any safety measures at all on your surf board. all I am saying take some personal responsibility yikes
Reply by melissa pilgrim January 23, 2011 05:37pm PSTReport Abuse
I also dont think these surfers are asking for the government ot supply and fund the jet skis or rides of said ski's they just want to have the option of people being out there if they get in trouble.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 06:29pm PSTReport Abuse
meatballkiller the surfers have "police, firemen, and emts aswell. so what is your point. did someone say they didn't ? there is a ban on what can be in the water. OMGOODNESS!! The issue for me is when someone knowingly does something he knows is unsafe without taking the right safety measures. fight them if you want but in the mean time don't put yourself in harms way, and if you do put yourself in harms way know that it is your fault if you get hurt!
Reply by maggyjay January 23, 2011 08:44pm PSTReport Abuse
Pak,
You should look up in the DSM-IV. Under narcissistic personality disorder, you'll find a picture of your face. By the way, what is dangerous is all the sh*t talking you're doing on this website. So, I hope you take personal responsibility for the instant Karama you're about to encompass.
Its pretty simple. If its a human life, save it. If its the environment, save it. If its an animal life, save it. Anything we can not replace or manufacture needs to be preserved and above every single one of those things are human lives. Period.
Posted by shadowman3400 January 23, 2011 02:29pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Logic indicates, those that enacted the ban/law on lifesaving motorized equipment at the site of this 'event', could be proven guilty of reckless endangerment, in the event of a death, the least, manslaughter, or if can be proven someone had suggested the law would remove the surfers from the site, perhaps premeditated murder of some degree.
It is a shame that the members of these organizations, NOAA and others, do not take a positive move for all that enjoy these sports/activities. Shame, prison terms on them ASAP, and remuneration for those injured or worse..
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 03:35pm PSTReport Abuse
Logic indicates, that if you engage in a sport that you knowingly has limited safety measures or none at all you don't engage in the activity. If one engages in that activity and is killed or seriously injured they created there own situation. How about reckless endangerment on yourself. now that's logic for you.
Reply by mikala January 23, 2011 03:46pm PSTReport Abuse
It's not about reckless endangerment; people surf for reasons other than that. Don't you have a hobby or something that you enjoy doing? Unfortunately, some recreational sports do cause injury including football but it doesn't stop them from doing what they love they to do so why should surfers stop what they love to do.
However, the issue here is NOAA not recognizing the safety of jet ski's to save people who are in danger in the water. I am all for jet ski's being in the water to save a life! LOGIC...please reevaluate your logic.
Reply by walt miles January 23, 2011 03:49pm PSTReport Abuse
Logic indicates that driving a car could get you killed AND is worse for the environment that a jetski, does that mean we shouldn't send ambulances? Your getting FAR to much into people's business by telling them not do a certain sport, most sports can and have killed people.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 06:33pm PSTReport Abuse
maybe people shouldn't point the finger of blame on a situation yhat was clearly decided by the injured. I do hope he recovers
Reply by internomad January 23, 2011 08:40pm PSTReport Abuse
you completely miss the point PAK, it must hurt to be so ignorant. the injured is well aware of the risks, however he is entitled to immediate medical treatment if the case arises.
how about if they banned fire extinguishers and sprinklers systems in your home because the carbon emissions put into the environment to manufacture these items are harmful to the environment. should every one stop using their fireplaces for heat for their family and blame their self for their home and family being burnt because someone decided that these items should be banned and people don't have the right to have some fire suppression system standing by in case of an emergency because some stiff has decided that it would cut down on manufacturing emissions.
in the meantime, the rest of the world is pumping out thousands of tons of emission into the environment that eventually pollute the entire atmosphere, and you petty pathetic americans that complain about the environmental effects that a 4 stroke jet ski has. Take a trip to any foreign Country and argue with them of the negative environmental effects that their lifestyle is having on the planet. They would be liable to throw you into the ocean and make you become an environmental hazzard due to your decomposing body polluting the waters.
point is, don't sweat the small stuff, you want to fight emissions and pollution then look to the cruise ships and cargo ships and fishing vessels that are operating every day and the trash that is being dumped offshore into the oceans and have the audacity to try to say that jet skis have some major effect on pollution in the waters
Reply by internomad January 23, 2011 08:50pm PSTReport Abuse
So PAK, if you was driving a car and encountered an accident, should you be denied medical treatment?
everyone knows that their are always risks and dangers while being in an automobile. That is why everyone is bound by law to have insurance, because the chance for injury is so great. So while you are laying on the side of a highway fighting for your life, should everyone stand over you and say , hmmm tragic, oh well PAK you knew the risks, now take responsibility for your actions and bleed to death while joe public stands by watching you bleed to death and saying , well he should have known better and no one to blame for him laying here fighting for his life but himself. Should these bystanders come to your time of need or should they stand by and watch and say , oh too bad for him?
Posted by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 02:31pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Um...it would not be on the shoulders of the NOAA if someone gets killed surfing, it would be on the shoulders of the surfer who evaluated the conditions and took their board out anyway. As with many sports, surfing poses a potential risk. It's not anyone's else's job to ensure your safety when you decide to participate. If the NOAA has determined they must en-act this ban to protect the environment, take the additional risk into account before you decide where you want to surf.
Reply by pak January 23, 2011 04:21pm PSTReport Abuse
like that well said
Reply by tim orr January 23, 2011 05:07pm PSTReport Abuse
If it's no one else's job to ensure my safety...why do I have to wear a helmet to ride my bike? Both bicycle and motorcycle? Why do I have to wear a seatbelt when I drive my car?
Reply by lynmarsh January 23, 2011 05:28pm PSTReport Abuse
Tim, I think it should be 110% up to the cyclist or driver if they want to wear a helmet or seatbelt or not. As to why they've made it a law...I would say it's to collect additional revenue off of citations!
Reply by offthewall2 January 23, 2011 08:10pm PSTReport Abuse
The helmet and seatbelt laws often mean there are no injuries that tax payers have to cover when folks choose not to be responsible for themselves.
Reply by internomad January 23, 2011 08:17pm PSTReport Abuse
if that is the case, then football players, boxers, baseball, nascar, hockey players and so on shouldn't have paramedics and ambulances standing by in case of an emergency. Every thrill seeker and sports player knows they risk their health and life to injury, the point of having rescue standing by is if there becomes a life threatening situation, there can be a quick response. These additional risks you speak of that these surfers are supposed to take into account for are induced by other humans, not risks induced by nature, thus these humans making decisions to ban and deny other humans speedy emergency care are jeopardizing human life, far different from someone risking their own life and paying the ultimate price for their own actions versus paying the ultimate price because of some government official deciding who has a right to emergency care and who isn't based on what they think is socially acceptable sport.
so many of the posters here are programmed robots so used to being dictated to them what they can do and cannot do for entertainment and for a thrill, They have completely lost the concept of having the freedom of choice what you want to do with your own life as long as your actions do not trespass on someone elses life. Its amazing how people say you can be whatever you want to be..... then in the small print disclaimer only as long as some white collar pencil pusher thinks or feels it is safe for you.
People say you should take responsibility for your own actions, and when people try to take responsibility for or are willing to take responsibility for their own action, there is always someone else saying you dont have a right to take responsibility for your self it is our right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life.
These people are programmed robots brainwashed by some political figure who uses their own opinion to dictate what is dangerous and what is not. firing up the bar BQ in the back yard can be dangerous, should it be banned
Reply by internomad January 23, 2011 09:12pm PSTReport Abuse
OFFTHEWALL - The helmet and seatbelt laws often mean there are no injuries that tax payers have to cover when folks choose not to be responsible for themselves.
Obviously you have never actually worked as a firefighter / paramedic. What the news seldom reports is how many deaths were caused by the additional weight of helmets and the increased inertia caused by them. or report how the helmet straps have choked a accident victim to death while they were trapped in the wreckage, same as seatbelts have choked many people.
Seatbelts help in front and rear collisions, but many many side collisions I have rolled up on victims have broken necks and of massive trauma due to the seatbelt limiting their movement while the head snaps side to side violently and the metal of the vehicle crushes on top of their bodies because the seat belt restrained them rather than pushing them to the other side of the vehicle or ejecting completely from the wreckage. The media don't want you to know how many deaths could have possibly been avoided. Rather they want to plant it into your head that seat belts are always the life saver of any accident to make the general public that knows no better to believe everything they are told by others with an agenda.
If there is a death and no helmet or seatbelt, highway patrol makes sure to post that in the news, but if a death and helmet or seatbelt was worn, they are more reluctant to report that in the news. so if there is a accident and death reported yet no mention of whether there was a seatbelt worn or helmet. pretty much be assured that there was but that is negative journalism against politicians agenda that created the laws
Reply by ron wright January 23, 2011 09:16pm PSTReport Abuse
I would think that having some type of safety precautions in place like rescue boats or wave runners wuld be ideal. I surf, but know nothing about boats, wave runners, and how these engines destroy the environment. You would think that we could compromise, and come up with a reasonable solution. The person who puts on these events should be allowed to have some type of safety net in place for those in danger. Sounds to me like there are other parties involve who do not want these types of events in the first place. Just my thoughts...
Reply by ron wright January 23, 2011 09:16pm PSTReport Abuse
I would think that having some type of safety precautions in place like rescue boats or wave runners wuld be ideal. I surf, but know nothing about boats, wave runners, and how these engines destroy the environment. You would think that we could compromise, and come up with a reasonable solution. The person who puts on these events should be allowed to have some type of safety net in place for those in danger. Sounds to me like there are other parties involve who do not want these types of events in the first place. Just my thoughts...
Posted by tahoetwisters January 23, 2011 02:35pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
There should be a ban on all wave runners, especially on Lake Tahoe...." surf at you own risk."
Reply by meatballkiller January 23, 2011 04:46pm PSTReport Abuse
then why were a seat belt or a helmet drive at your own risk
Reply by tim orr January 23, 2011 04:50pm PSTReport Abuse
I agree....let me drive at my own risk...just because you want to wear helmet shouldn't give you the right to tell me I have too...if you want to surf where there are no waverunners...oh well...we'll see how much you hate them when they pull your water logged lifeless body out of the water....
Reply by dianna baldwin January 23, 2011 08:09pm PSTReport Abuse
I think it should be at your own risk I hate helmets especially on a harley that wind in your hair the freedom it has!!! goosh!!! could you imagine wearing a damn hemet surfing no freedom to it!!!
Reply by offthewall2 January 23, 2011 08:10pm PSTReport Abuse
The helmet and seatbelt laws often mean there are no injuries that tax payers have to cover when folks choose not to be responsible for themselves.
And, they are designed by insurance companies who also would prefer not to pay for those who choose stupid over smart
Reply by dianna baldwin January 23, 2011 08:11pm PSTReport Abuse
I MEAN HELMET
Reply by dianna baldwin January 23, 2011 08:11pm PSTReport Abuse
I MEAN HELMET
Reply by dianna baldwin January 23, 2011 08:13pm PSTReport Abuse
WE SHOULD HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE THEN!!!
Reply by american mama January 23, 2011 08:32pm PSTReport Abuse
Everyone knows surfing large waves is dangerous so those who enter should do that at their own risk! It is not the tax payers problem that some surfers are after a adrealin rush. Let them do what is "fun" and somewhat a drug for them at their own discrestion and if a wave kills them, that is what the risk is, and the way they will accept death, not on tubes at a hospital, drowning is most likely the most peaceful way a surfer can go!
By the way their families should not then collect Social Security payments! This was a risk not an accident or a disease!
Reply by ac96822 January 24, 2011 07:43am PSTReport Abuse
Everything you do is at your own risk. Why should the government not allow us to enjoy nature, and accept that there will be photographers/runners out there? Come on, get with the program... obviously you've not lived near a large surf community to understand all that it entails. I value the Earth and its resources, but also value life. I don't believe that there are *so* many PWCs that we're doing that much damage.
Lastly, your assessment of drowning is downright ignorant and a shame. I'm sorry that you think that. Try Sunset Beach, having 2-3-foot swells (what was planned) to rogue waves in the 15-20-foot range pound you into the reef meters below. It's not fun, and I'm guessing you're either really young, or just that dogmatically ignorant. You obviously have no clue as to what you're ranting about. I feel sorry for you and lynmarsh. I understand what both of you are saying, but it's like insisting that the earth is flat. Ok... You can have your opinion, but it's just not sensible.
Posted by raquel hernandez forsland January 23, 2011 02:42pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Have to agree with justonemore. The NOAA bans waverunners (which I'm personally not a fan of, but do not agree with an outright ban) but do nothing about the dead mammals washing up on the shores due to the fishing industry. In one morning I saw 2 fresh dead seals and 2 fresh dead dolphins laying on a 1 mile stretch near Aptos CA where 3 fishing boats had been circling the night before (herring season). One baby dolphin was still alive and we tried swimming it out past the breakers (no kidding- not even in swim trunks, I'm just taking a morning stroll). Found it washed up dead 3 hours later. Damn tube nets suffocate seals, dolphins, otters, etc., then the fishing boats just dump them over for the residents/beach-goers to clean up. Sick of it.
Reply by nash_boston January 23, 2011 03:27pm PSTReport Abuse
That's because those fishermen are a bunch of sick f***s. Sadly the fishing industry is ridiculously powerful.
The problem in this case are the idiots who surfed here knowing that waverunners are banned.
Reply by logic_master January 23, 2011 04:10pm PSTReport Abuse
Nash, you are the moron poster boy. We have a dictionary filled with derogatory terms mostly invented to describe fools like you. You are a sad pathetic little person with the logical intellect approaching that of a skunk. You clearly need medical attention for that brain disorder you have. get help now!
Posted by samantha barnes January 23, 2011 02:45pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
My heart goes out to Trette and his family! Take it from someone who has been there, rehabilitating from an anoxonal traumatic brain injury requires major dedication to ample cognitive therapies in order to regain new brain-connections, or synapses.
Posted by surfeater January 23, 2011 02:46pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Ok... When I surf I take into account the danger, including lack of help, of the spot I'm paddling out at.
I'm glad there was help to pull this guy out. That's cool. I don't think a ticket is needed... but the regulation is sound... hell, look at all the guys that surf Mavs now that it's "safe" with all the sleds..
This wasn't NOAAs fault. This was the ocean being the ocean. Plain and simple.
Posted by jya armamen January 23, 2011 02:48pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
I takes so much to be beautiful experience, and it is good to be beautiful for Much Earnings... Surfing is beautiful, what else can we say...
Posted by williamross7 January 23, 2011 02:55pm PSTReply | Report Abuse
Sometimes I get so sick of government deciding what we need to do in order to appear safety conscious, when the fact is that it's about money. NOAA really shouldn't be playing surfer police at a marine sanctuary when HMB is full of kooks who just want to make sure the riff-raff stays out. The NOAA ruling is political, not safety oriented. Smells like a great lawsuit target to me. Anyhow, it's just another opinion. But beach side NO BUILD property in HMB is still available for less than 10K. @ Lynmarsh, really? This is the GRIND network, I think we all know the risks, but the policing cannot be one way.
Reply by dan richardson January 23, 2011 04:44pm PSTReport Abuse
first intelligent comment i've read. It is all about one thing.... money. Name one object, principle, tangible item on this earth that is not negotiable. NOAA will change when the proper amount of money buys the correct politicians to tell them to change the policy. OR if enough money can be charged for permits to make it worth their while. FISHING BOATS, my oh my, what they must pay in permits to keep their rigs in the water. NOAA is just waiting for a proper permitting system for PWCs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next > | Last
Add a Comment