This may be controversial on this list; however out of three boats we know of--and I believe that there were several others, one abandoned the trip, and  two made it only with the help of a Canadian Coast Guard Ice Breaker.  I question the wisdom of making a trip where this type of assistance is predictably needed.  It takes government resources, and puts others at risk--as well as the crew of the vessels.

The same reasoning applies for many "adventure" expedition, such as to Everest where often rescues have to be made and lives are lost.  There is an acceptable level of risk--but to me some of these type of ventures have an unacceptable risk. I have no idea how much it costs to run one of these ice breakers, but would hazard a guess in the 10's of thousands a day.

Another example was Alvah Simon, who sailed his boat to 74 North and iced it in for the winter.  (North to the Night ).  He had chosed a desolite place--and a rescue mission had to bring him fuel and supplies while travel was risky on the ice and put his rescuers in some peril.  Contrast with another sailer friend of mine who also sailed to both the antartic and artic--but elected to winter in at a small port in Greenland, further North, where there were supplies and help if needed at no risk to others.  It is very difficult to say that you "won't accept help"--but in reality you face a substantial risk of someone having to come to your rescue.  Needless to say, the problem is where to draw the line.

Regards,
Bob Austin.

I do see your point, but I must ask why are the icebreakers operating up
there? I think that it is to ensure that supplies get to remote settlements.
As long as these "rescues" don't take them out of their normal operating
area, the incremental cost to Canadian taxpayers is, I hope, minimal.

Is this endeavor any more foolish than the offshore voyages of other
pleasure boats - only a little. But that is a side-effect of our free and
diverse North American societies. Probably neither Canada nor the USA would
have come as far as we have without our share of iconoclasts and "free
spirits."

Ron Rogers

All Hands:

I have been reading Bob Austin’s reply, Mike
Sandiland’s thoughts, Ron Roger’s musings, Willy of
CFE Inc’s ideas and Georgs Kolesnikovs’ forwarding of
e-mails about the Northwest Passage attempts and the
eventual rescues and failures. This is going to be a
fairly long reply to all and hopefully the last one
that I feel I have to reply to.
Overall, I like the idea of having the government of
Canada charging an “adventurer” a fee for their
attempt at the long fabled Northwest Passage. I recall
reading about it many years ago as a journey by
Europeans who thought that there was a dangerous and
full of intimidation attempt at finding the fabled
Northwest Passage. That was before we as humans really
understood that the world was a globe and not flat.
There are still people who think the world is flat and
that the United States never got to the Moon. They are
laughable with their supposedly scientific
explanations that we sit and laugh about. We do that
because it is a flight of fancy and we all need a
laugh every now and then. However, flying into the
teeth of danger, when all it requires is a rationale
thought and it becomes obvious that this is a flight
of fancy that should be undertaken only by those with
the really serious equipment and ability to fend for
themselves without involving outside help. Maybe that
is why the current crop of “adventurers” who attempt
to climb Everest are charged a healthy fee to get a
permit to climb that peak. If memory serves me, and
I’m sure someone will correct me, the “adventurer” is
charged upwards of $75,000 to attempt the climb of
Everest. No matter if they succeed or fail, the fee
must be paid. Why not the same for the Northwest
Passage attempt. Bob is correct about the costs of
daily operation of an icebreaker. Those people are
bringing supplies such as food and fuel to outposts
that are cut off during the majority of the year. I
know if I was waiting for supplies such as food and
fuel were on the way and the government had to traipse
off to ”rescue” some “adventurer” because he did not
have the necessary grey matter to know that this is
foolhardy, I know I would not be concerned about his
welfare because he put himself in danger.
Why would some do such a foolhardy thing? This is not
a reality television show as “Survivor” where there
are cameras. lights, crews for sound and editing
booths and food, water and bathrooms available behind
the lenses of the cameras. Heck, they even have
scripts, which a lot of foolish people do not realize.
I won’t digress because it a waste of breath and time
to explain it.
Let’s deal with my one of my favorite complaints:
Everest. How many have see the images of the discarded
items at the first base camp on Everest? It is a
veritable junk yard. Oxygen bottles, empty food
canisters, discarded jackets, sleeping bags and tons
of used/unused equipment left by adventurers who left
that stuff behind for others to pick up after them.
Wonder why they need to charge fees for the attempt?
Someone has to carry that stuff back down to
“civilization” and discard it. The various base camps
are not garbage dumps, however you would think they
are by looking at the accumulation of discarded
equipment. I was dismayed when National Geographic
showed it during one of their expeditions to show the
attempts at climbing Everest.
It reminded me of a first, and only, date I had when I
was in my early 20’s. My date rolled down the window
to throw out a piece of paper that she no longer
needed and was shocked when I stopped the car and
backed up to ask her puck up the litter she had just
discarded. When asked why she thought it was alright,
her answer astounded me. “That’s what they pay highway
workers for!” was her quick answer. That is one of the
problems of our “throw away society” today. we place
so little value on our inconsequential actions and
refuse to see the consequences of our actions. Even
the little things of throwing away a burned up
cigarette out the window. Ever seen the results of
that almost finished cigarette from the fellow in
front of you tossing it out the window on a highway at
night? It looks like he tossed a flare, doesn’t it? I
wonder how many fires have been started just by that
:”inconsequential” act. The same thing about an
“adventurer” who tries to accomplish the Northwest
Passage. That person knows that the Canadian
Government will attempt to rescue him if weather,
wind, ice or whales cause him to falter and get stuck.
Georgs does his job by reporting on this plight and we
are supposed to feel sorry for this poor misguided
soul. Sorry, sympathy in my dictionary is between s**t
and syphilis and I choose save my sympathy for those
people who cannot control their destiny. The old adage
of the Lord protecting drunks and fools does not
apply. Don’t look for publicity and the media should
not help these people by reporting on their attempt.
That is something that we should let the obituary
writers handle. I much prefer to read about the
misadventures of the people who try to cross the
Pacific with their 40 foot Norhavn and detail their
misses and successes. I enjoy that. I relish being
alongside those real “adventurers” whom I can admire
and someday hope to do the same trip with the
knowledge that they impart to the group. I am so
grateful to Larry for his insight and willingness to
share his knowledge. Especially his willingness to
share his foibles in a way that we can all laugh with
him and not at him.
I got tired of reading about failure because of one’s
rather lack of grey matter and the bailing out by the
Canadian government and cavalier attitude because “it
was their job” to bail him out of trouble. Personally,
I am glad we are reading about his finishing his
adventure. I hope he learned something from it. I know
I sure did.
Now to deal with the media. Georgs is a true
journalist in every sense of the word. I have really
enjoyed his writing about the trips he took as part of
adventures a long range cruising. However, reporting
the plight of a Northwest Passage by someone
ill-informed, ill-equipped and ill-prepared for such
an adventure is something we should all take as Georgs
reported. He was being a reporter, not a journalist. I
enjoy his writing as a journalist. Georgs, let someone
else handle the attempt at reporting the adventure.
Let the “adventurer” pay for the reporter to come
along and detail the attempt and let the chips fall
where they may at the end. I am not saying we were
hoping he would fail. I am saying that it had no sense
of adventure and most of us saw it for what it was - a
foolhardy attempt at garnering ink. How much did the
Canadian Government spend rescuing this person and his
crew? What scientific information was garnered from
this attempt? What scientific information should have
have gathered and was lost because the crew of the
icebreaker had to break off its “real job” to rescue
this misanthrope? Reminds me of that one date’s
response; “Well, that’s their job!” and off he went to
finish his quest. What a waste of time and effort. I
am certain that a certain percentage of readers will
take me to task as is their place. However, I still
have to ask: “Was all this worth it? What did it
accomplish? There is nothing wrong with failure - as
long as you learn something.”
OKAY, I will now get off my soapbox. I have stated my
more than 2 cents.
1,345 words to be exact
Rick Redfern

Good lord... if that happens, the government will be charging us a rescue
fee before we can ever take out a boat. Car for that matter. Oh yea, they're
called "taxes" and are already here. Don't go giving government too many
ideas about new ways to raise them.

Keith

"The sea was angry that day, my friends, like an old man trying to send back
soup in a deli." - George Louis Costanza
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Redfern" advanzio@yahoo.com

Overall, I like the idea of having the government of
Canada charging an "adventurer" a fee for their
attempt at the long fabled Northwest Passage.