Rob wrote:I'm curious as to why the float down is considered such a dangerous activity, why the coast guard discourages it. I'm sure alcohol is involved in most of the mishaps, but is there some inherent danger? I'm almost afraid to ask this, but is it just pure idiocy and lunacy at play here?
From an observers point of view, there are several factors at play whicj I'll try to share and I'm sure I'm not covering all of them nor are they in a specific order:
1. Alcohol Abuse. You mentioned this and it is a real factor for a lot of the rescues from what I've heard. I go to Lighthouse Beach every year to watch the spectacle and this is the first year I've not seen someone actually laying on the beach passed out or worse.
2. The lack of people using personal flotation devices. So many people relying on their "vessel" alone as their only means of flotation.
3. The stability of their vessel part one. There are a lot of home made flotation "vessels" that might be great in a swimming pool or gentle inland lake, but not so great in the current under the bridge.
4. The stability of their vessel part two. Lots of people use flotation devices that are intended for their home pool, or for a tent (air mattresses for example) and these are hard to control in currents under the bridge or when there is wind.
5. Last but not least, cost and resources diverted. There is a HUGE cost to the Coast Guard, local law enforcement agencies, and homeland security. They are trying to maintain the safety of the participants, which is great. But in doing so, they are compromising the other duties they are normally tasked with, and subsequently, compromising security we might normally take for granted if the Float Down never happened in the first place. Nevermind the potential risks of a boater elsewhere who needs assistance.
That in a nutshell would be the big factors why the agencies consider it dangerous.