There's been a fair amount of drama on the water this summer and most of it could have been avoided.

Take the case of a family adrift off Maketu with no petrol, poor communication, no forecast, no flares, and no idea. They, and some other recent survivors have been treated almost like heroes. Simply because they got lucky and other people risked their lives to save them.
It's fantastic that our Coastguard, police and volunteers launched a successful search and saved their lives.
In the absence of police and coastguard labelling these people as idiots, allow me.
In the Maketu case, here was a perfect opportunity for authorities to hammer home a message to the rest of the wannabe boating public:
'How Not to Go Boating.”
Sure, trouble can strike even the best prepared boat at any time. But to venture out with that forecast, so poorly equipped, is absolute stupidity.
We were at sea during that time, along with a lot of other Bay boaties and, despite being in a much bigger vessel with a lot of safety gear, ample fuel and several means of communication, all normal-thinking boaties knew the forecast and scarpered for the nearest harbour. No-one in their right mind heads out to sea, especially in a runabout, with a forecast like that.
The ever-faithful Coastguard risked their lives to search for these hapless mariners -- and who footed the bill? The coastguard members, mainly. Ironically, most of them are well prepared, pick their weather carefully and never need the assistance they pay for.
Sounds an awfully similar story to dog registration, doesn't it?
Who shelled out for the Orion search aircraft at $5000 fuel an hour? Unsuspecting ratepayers.

The other point that seems largely missed from the coverage: these boaties risked their lives in those conditions for a sackful of mussels. The irony: There was, and still is, a shellfish collection ban throughout the Bay of Plenty due to high toxin levels, causing paralytic shellfish poisoning. If the poor seamanship doesn't get them, the poisonous mussels will.

Surfs up!
It's been a similar story on the surf beaches, with some lucky escapes, amid the tragedies.
Which brings me to this question: Why is it compulsory to have a lifejacket on a boat (a slim chance it will sink and land you in the water) but it isn't compulsory to wear a lifejacket in the surf (when you are certainly going to end up in the water)?
The chances of swimming from a boat sinking or capsizing are probably ten thousand to one. The chances of you going swimming in the surf and ending up in the water are totally guaranteed.

There is a bizarre ritual going on every year on our surf beaches, and beamed into our television sets with nauseating repetition:
1. Idiots go to surf beaches.
2. Surf lifesavers say 'swim between flags, watch out for rips, use fins with boogie boards etc.”
3. Persons from Point 1 take no notice of Point 2.
4. Surf lifesavers risk own lives in IRBs and waste thousands of dollars in helicopters and medical consequences and costs to rescue idiots.
Buoyant suggestion
Now this might seem like a silly idea to print, but that's what we are here for.
Why not make lifejackets, or buoyancy aids, compulsory at surf beaches? Even if only when conditions are considered risky?
If boaties, out for a quiet afternoon fishing on flat calm water on a perfectly watertight and functioning boat are expected to take lifejackets, how can it be sensible for those deliberately throwing themselves into turbulent surf not be required to do the same?

Buckling up
Another point of mild annoyance is the continuing scene of lifesavers heading out in IRBs with buoyancy aids slung around their shoulders but not actually buckled up. What message is this sending to the greater public?
In this PC over regulated world, any other risky area of public access would immediately be fenced off, closed to the public, warning signs all over the place and officious clowns in fluoro safety jackets and hard hats swarming everywhere, waving their arms around to keep the place safe.
A classic example: we try to stop people standing under glaciers, in case large amounts of ice fall on top of them.
Not so, the surf. Why is it exempt if it is so dangerous? If someone as fit and strong as Sonny Fai can't survive, what hope is there for the rest of us.
Surf lifesavers do a fantastic job and they are to be commended for their commitment and skills. But surely it's come to a stage when the country needs to get realistic and bring the surf zone into perspective.
There are thousands of rescues every year on our beaches. Why? Because people continue to throw themselves into wild surf and rips like lemmings, with no flotation, no skill and knowing the backstop of the lifesavers will probably pull them out when the inevitable happens.
One girl was rescued near death at the Mount this year, just days after she'd been saved in a similar situation at Raglan. Proof that people just don't seem to learn.
Again, it's the inconsistencies of the messages that have me baffled.
Increasing numbers of rescues on beaches should not be an indication that more needs spending on rescue resources.
Surely it's a signal that in big surf, people should be stopped from getting in, especially without flotation, in the first place.