T&T: abandoned & salvage

[Douglas Gould]

>I'm glad that someone with a better understanding of law and custom has 
>commented. And most folks who read the site that I referenced should have 
>grasped this. I got the peril concept.

>BUT DARN IT, the USCG towed the vessel , not the fishing folk! Because it 
>was a suspicious circumstance, the USCG told them to stand by the vessel. 
>Largely because the "salvors" had to be considered suspects.

>In my lay opinion, and "I'm unanimous in this," the best these clowns can 
>hope to get is compensation for a few hours on-site and the fish that they 
>can prove, based upon their history, they lost out on. That and eternal 
>damnation.

Ron, you keep confusing the tow with an "act of salvage"....There is actually
case law where a salvage claim was paid because of a phone 
conversation. The "salvor" was never even on scene! There is no need 
for the fishermen to have towed the boat to claim a salvage.

Salvage is not so much about time and effort (those are part of it); its
much more about the outcome. Also, there have been a number of
salvage cases where the Coast Guard or other gov't agency was 
involved. Their involvment does not change the facts; salvage 
awards have been paid to salvors for pumping out boats using the 
Coast Guard's pumps!

In the end, this case will not be about whether or not a salvage occured,
but how much reward is enough to convince the next guy to standby or
tow or pump or radio or whatever. Perhaps you will feel better if a salvage 
of $200 is awarded.

I doubt the fishermen were considered 'suspects'. IF they had done something
unspeakable, they wouldn't have called the CG. 

If you think the CG knows what they are doing in situations like this, I suggest reading
"Dead Men Tapping" by Kate Yeoman.
Doug