My personal take is that the vessel should have remained a dock side attraction which is what it was for almost 2 decades and never should have been put into service as a blue water passenger carrying vessel. To me lacks fishing vessel regualtions are no justification for application to the Bounty. Nor is it wise to skirt the requirements that other tall ships must comply with by not taking on "passengers" and merely calling them "crew".
While I agree with some of your postings and appreciate your insights, there are many of you postings that I find nit picky and condecending. I do not have the time nor inclination to debate any such matters and wish you well. If I was still in the Annapolis area I might even make it to one of the sailnet get togethers and many times talking in person is so much better than typeing behind a computer screen.
I actuality I agree with your acessment of the Bounty remaining a dockside attraction. Under such circumstances she definately would have not kept up financially and could not survive. It seems like they were caught between the rock and hard place and constantly had to move her for funding for survival. Her upkeep and repair were way behind safety measures for having passangers on board and to fix things to that level would have required a funding they couldnt acheive. She was in major disrepair behind the facade and an accident waiting to happen if she continued sailing.
Her captain could not give up their love for the traditional wooden vessel and failed to see the reality of the condition to the end risking her in rough weather when maybe she never should have really left the dock. Her crew were inexperienced and just did what they did for the love of the lore of the tall ship sailing vessel as well as the trust of their teacher the captain.
How the CG can prevent something similar from happening on a private vessel will be interesting to see, as they need to do the same with other private vessels too such as commercial fishers, which I do not think they are prepared to enter that arena and would get major pushbcak from the private maritime industry. As Pauio points out the vessels owned by countries have the reasources to truly keep up with the upkeep required.
You may call it condescending, but my issue with your post concerning the gCaptain writer was that both the writer and I watched or were present for the whole hearing so far. You werent I assume. Yet you stated unequivocally I was wrong about his bias. I cant figure out what that is based on and have asked you to explain. I have tried to post each of the testimonies as has Rockdawg as we both seem to be the only ones watching it. I wish more people were so we would have different viewpoints.
I felt the posting was a little self serving and by omission of some critical parts of the statements of the testifiers or posting their comments out of context help sensationalize things somewhat and gave them a bias. news media is biased in the first pplace and as was pointed out the audience was the gCaptain site members who have alreaduy formed their opinions so it made sense to substantiate them.
My feelings about what happened have not changed soince day one when I pleaded for restratint and not jumping to conslusions on all aspects of this Bounty as it would p[revent us learning for the future. Aside from the obvious statement the Capatain should have never left the dock which has remnained true throughout for me and everyone, some of the testimony has brought forth other culpable people as well as cleared up some of the early posts opr reporting.
Had you not watched the hearing and had the ophrase explained to you by the crew...the statement that the Captain " chased hurricanes" was one example of this.
The desrepair was reported by Mainesail early on and he thinks it should never have left the dock, Listening to the testimony is almost incredulous to me that a reputable yard would tack new boards onto ricky ones and let the vessel sail of without so much as a protest or informing the CG. Instead one of them took pictires to cover their ass which never sbhowed up till after she sank. And then there is the owner and Bounty Corp LLC whose culpability is shrouded oin secracy as of yet, but which feels like there was some pressure there. We will have to wait till the ;awsuits to figure out what actual part they played.
I dont know the answers or recommendatuons yet from the CG. I can say that if the Bounty had to rely on only gate admissions to remain solvent it would not have. She wasnt worth anything to anyone in her present repair state and had the oppertunity we just found out for a possible endowment in Florida, thus she was moved. The ownership of her was faced with either a financial loss by scrapping her, a move to Florida to find funding, or an insurance claim if she sank or burned. I am not accusing anyone just staing the obvious. Like someone posted before follow the money.
Its a sad sad story because we al love the image of the old tall ships. If she was some old tuna fisherman or commercial fishing boat we woulkdnt care about all this, but she represented the Bounty.