# Is it worth it to salvage adrift/derelict sailboats?



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

I've been thinking about the sailboats that are occasionally left adrift, like the one a few hundred miles north of Hawaii.

What happens if you go out and tow it back in? Has anyone every heard of anyone getting a check that made the effort worthwhile? Please PM me with details, if you have them.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

.. I mean, is it worth it beside the important fact of not letting a good sailboat go to waste? There's something honorable about preserving one.


----------



## sck5 (Aug 20, 2007)

I know a guy who salvages sunk sailboats and refurbishes them in his spare time. He does all the work himself and every two or three years he sells a nice boat for a nice profit. Its not for everyone though since most people arent able to do 100% of the work themselves or arent able to put in the time - This guy does it as much as a hobby as a business. You would have to enjoy the work to make it worthwhile.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

For the bigger boats, I'm sure it'd be worth doing-but it woudl require an investment in capital, like a vessel capable of handling bad weather and towing said larger sailboat into harbor.


Bene505 said:


> I've been thinking about the sailboats that are occasionally left adrift, like the one a few hundred miles north of Hawaii.
> 
> What happens if you go out and tow it back in? Has anyone every heard of anyone getting a check that made the effort worthwhile? Please PM me with details, if you have them.


----------



## AllThumbs (Jul 12, 2008)

If you find and tow an abandoned (adrift) vessel to a marina, and the owner wants it back, whos is it?


----------



## Gryzio (Dec 13, 2007)

There are "salvage" rights, but, a person needs to really study up on this stuff.

For myself, it not worth my time, unless a person were to ask for help. And then, we are not sure we would be compensated for our efforts.

"Pure Salvage" is the term I think you need to read up on.

BoatUS Towing Services: Towing vs Salvage

The reference is only that, and for a starting point to "learn"!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

allthumbs,

I believe the rule of the water is something to the effect of.......

If the tower uses "there" line to tow, salvage or other wise a boat, they then have rights to ownership. 

Don't quote me on that one, but, that is the generally speaking right one has. There are some exceptions, such as some country's governments will claim ownership of boats that have sunk. Hence Spain with some of the gallions sunk in the 1800's as an example. Even then, it is hard for them to figure out if you found one, and brought the gold etc up with out them knowing. 

Marty


----------



## N0NJY (Oct 19, 2008)

Assuming the boat is "abandoned" in "international waters".... I'd be in contact with the US Navy (if it were close) to ask them to check things out (or Coast Guard if close enough to US waters).

I have to ask... if someone asks for help and you "toss them a line" - how does one figure it's now your salvage, your boat, you are owed something?

Seems to me that good practice is to assist people, period.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Interesting read:
Marine salvage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If the boat was adrift and in reasonable danger of being hit and sunk, you are probably entitled to reasonable salvage costs for the vessel. As a general rule, the greater the risk to you and your vessel in "salvaging" the other boat, the greater the salvage costs you're entitled to. YMMV... IANAL.


AllThumbs said:


> If you find and tow an abandoned (adrift) vessel to a marina, and the owner wants it back, whos is it?


----------



## AllThumbs (Jul 12, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> If the boat was adrift and in reasonable danger of being hit and sunk, you are probably entitled to reasonable salvage costs for the vessel. As a general rule, the greater the risk to you and your vessel in "salvaging" the other boat, the greater the salvage costs you're entitled to. YMMV... IANAL.


I can see the salvager and the boat owner having different opinions on how much that is, especially after it's safe and sound at the dock.

If it were truely worthwhile to salvage someone elses boat, I would think there would be "helicoptor chasers" out there scooping up your boat the minute you are rescued.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Most boats aren't worth a whole lot... and the salvage coverage only goes up to the value of the boat. So, a Cal 39 might only have $40,000 of coverage, and you might not even qualify for all of that. Keeping a salvage vessel that is capable of towing a damaged 40-65' sailboat back in heavy weather, is a pretty expensive proposition... and I seriously doubt that going out, even in relatively benign weather, finding the boat, and then towing it back is going to be profitable, unless you're dealing with boats and cargo worth millions of dollars.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

I'll echo SailingDog, and add a word about the market for "fix-up" sailboats.

Right now, almost no one's buying, hence the value of your tow-in is probably lower than at any time in recent memory. The value of what you salved, and the percentage you may receive as a salvage award, and the legal costs you may have incurred to reach that percentage, and the cost of the equipment (helio? tug? or just a lucky auxiliary cruiser passing by?) may exceed what you are ultimately awarded in salvage, if indeed you're awarded anything.

then there's the tricky question of whether it's an abandoned boat, or not. Whose tow line it is doesn't add much to this analysis. Salvage (it isn't til a judge says it is, otherwise it may be just towage) is awarded after considering a whole bunch of factors (google "Blackwall/ salvage" to see what the Blackwall factors are), and it can be expensive to get there.

So there's enough uncertainty, and delay, and expense, to determine whether you're the "owner", or the salvor, or just the tower, and what the recovery to you is, to make the effort likely non-cost effective for a smallish sailing yacht.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

The best expert on this subject is Mel Fisher. He spent decades in courts to prove his salvage rights. He had to pay off insurance claims to Lloyd's of London going back centuries.


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

Sailing Dog is the closest one so far. Salvage laws are complex and depnd a lot on when where and how. But basically if you find the vessel and tow it in, then you can make a salvage claim, that is essentially charge the owner for what you think was the cost of salvaging the vessel. You do not onw the vessel. For you to claim rights to the vessel the owner would have to relinquish their ownership. The exception is an abandoned vessel. And then you have to make a good faith attempt to find the owner of the vessel. Anyway, vessels salvage on the high seas come under admiralty law which is vastly different than civil law us mortals deal with every day. If you salvage a vessel within a state's jurisdiction the it comes under the laws of that state and they vary all over the map.

Read the article above about when it's salvage and when it's a tow. There is a significant difference.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

peikenberry,

I've been reading up a lot on this and this is the first time I've heard of admiralty versus civil law. Thanks for that.

Regards


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

By the way, it's probably a lot easier to just shop around the marinas for abandoned boats. A lot of boats get abandoned by the owners and left at marinas. The Marinas are happy to get rid of them, usually cheap cheap. Plus there are always ads for free boats to good homes on Craigslist and others such as the Woodenboat Rescue Foundation The Wooden Boat Rescue Foundation Search the net. You'l probably find something.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Very true, and the capital outlay to fund this is much lower, since you don't need a salvage vessel capable of towing a large sailboat in heavy seas. 


peikenberry said:


> By the way, it's probably a lot easier to just shop around the marinas for abandoned boats. A lot of boats get abandoned by the owners and left at marinas. The Marinas are happy to get rid of them, usually cheap cheap. Plus there are always ads for free boats to good homes on Craigslist and others such as the Woodenboat Rescue Foundation The Wooden Boat Rescue Foundation Search the net. You'l probably find something.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

I read a story from a year or two back. After 2 years in the courts, the sailboat that was towed-in was sold at auction. It sold for $9,000. This was the boat where the man fell off the boat.

So the people that towed the boat lost 2 days of fishing, had to pay legal fees and ended up getting next to nothing for their troubles. That is, nothing other than the intrinsic satisfaction of saving a sailboat, which was not really of intrinsic value to them, but would be for me.

Has anyone ever heard of it working out financially, to support going out and rescuing a derelict sailboat?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Bene-

I doubt it is going to work out financially to salvage derelict sailboats, because derelict boats are not worth much by definition.



> derelict: bedraggled: in deplorable condition;


However, it is probably possible to make money based on salvaging larger abandoned boats, that are relatively new and in relatively good condition. For instance, if the Maltese Falcon is ever abandoned, I'm pretty sure that you could make a penny or two salvaging her.



Bene505 said:


> I read a story from a year or two back. After 2 years in the courts, the sailboat that was towed-in was sold at auction. It sold for $9,000. This was the boat where the man fell off the boat.
> 
> So the people that towed the boat lost 2 days of fishing, had to pay legal fees and ended up getting next to nothing for their troubles. That is, nothing other than the intrinsic satisfaction of saving a sailboat, which was not really of intrinsic value to them, but would be for me.
> 
> Has anyone ever heard of it working out financially, to support going out and rescuing a derelict sailboat?


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

A pragmatist, upon finding an abandoned vessel in international waters during a calm, say, _and_ having no current mention of it in Notice to Mariners, _and_ given some evidence (state of rigging, presence of rainwater in the bilges, an inch of birdcrap on deck) that the boat had been abandoned for some time, might simply help themselves to any salvageable gear aboard and then open the seacocks/cut the hoses.

I believe it is a duty of anyone abandoning ship _when possible_ to sink it in order to remove it as a navigational hazard to other shipping/yachts/fishermen. The current Practical Sailor outlines just such a case: a non-sinking boat in bad conditions was sunk deliberately by its departing owner, who determined he required rescue rather than to continue sailing into a fresh round of gales.

The legalities of "harvesting" an abandoned boat at sea are unknown to me, but the world of hurt to which I would be exposing myself trying to take such a vessel under tow (unless I was at the 13 mile line of a friendly country in good weather) is deeply suspected. Basically, if you sink the thing, you do international shipping a favour, because you will not likely see profit in your actions otherwise.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Valiente said:


> ...
> The legalities of "harvesting" an abandoned boat at sea are unknown to me, but the world of hurt to which I would be exposing myself trying to take such a vessel under tow (unless I was at the 13 mile line of a friendly country in good weather) is deeply suspected...


Thanks for the post. What world of hurt do you mean?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Thanks for the post. What world of hurt do you mean?


The authorities in many countries would be asking how you came upon the vessel in tow, and what happened to the captain and crew of said vessel, and in many cases could hold you responsible for their disappearance until proven otherwise... That's the world of hurt I think Valiente is trying to avoid.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Bene-
"Has anyone ever heard of it working out financially, to support going out and rescuing a derelict sailboat?"
I think the phrase is "economically unfeasible". Because first you have to actually LOCATE a drifting boat, which could mean several days of chartering a light aircraft at perhaps a thousand dollars a day, give or take the calue of your time.
Then trying to get a tow vessel out to it--or, jumping out and boarding the vessel, in the radical assumption that your aircraft can come back and air-drop whatever you need to work the boat, on the next trip.

And somehow, before you do any of that, you'd need to ascertain the value of the vessel before you started and without having done the damage survey. Awfully speculative venture, unless you're an unemployed parachutist and machinist looking to have a fun adventure and sell the film rights. Those'd be worth more than the boat, probably.

Salvage and admiralty law are all so easily reserached now that there's an Internet. And Mel Fischer is totally irrelevant--his problems came from two very specific issues that don't apply to drifting boats. One, that the wreck might still be Spanish Crown property. Government property is never (never) "abandoned". Two, that the State of Florida had treasure trove laws in effect, and was claiming against him.

As long as your drifting boat isn't the property of some government <G> you won't have those problems. But you'd better pick a big handsome one if you want to cover your airfare to Hawaii first!


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> Bene-
> "Has anyone ever heard of it working out financially, to support going out and rescuing a derelict sailboat?"
> I think the phrase is "economically unfeasible". Because first you have to actually LOCATE a drifting boat, which could mean several days of chartering a light aircraft at perhaps a thousand dollars a day, give or take the calue of your time.
> Then trying to get a tow vessel out to it--or, jumping out and boarding the vessel, in the radical assumption that your aircraft can come back and air-drop whatever you need to work the boat, on the next trip.
> ...


I was thinking of these things you mention. It would definitely take a practiced team and investment, and the rewards would be slow in coming.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You'd have to be going after only the very highest of value targets...in order to see any return.


Bene505 said:


> I was thinking of these things you mention. It would definitely take a practiced team and investment, and the rewards would be slow in coming.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm reminded of a (mid-60's?) Frank Sinatra movie called "Assault on a Queen".

How to make money on the high seas.<G>


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

If the cargo is worth 50 mil you may want to tow it back to port.
Safe/Sea Online - Marine Salvage


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Thanks for the post. What world of hurt do you mean?


The legal wrangling that would commence the moment you tied up and tried to claim costs of the rescue or salvor's rights. As has been pointed out, even if you win, you likely lose as the lawyers win.

Most of the sailboats likely to come across a derelict yacht would not have the size advantage, engine power, spare crew or salvage expertise required to take it safely under tow. A variety of factors would have to be in play for that to be the case, primarily a well-crewed yacht towing a short distance in calm conditions. As is usually the case, the swell alone is enough to discourage even a close approach.

If it is safe to board a derelict yacht in the middle of the ocean, help yourself (it's _derelict_, after all) and _sink _the poor thing, rather than have it acting exactly as a multi-ton container would (a mastless plastic boat will show poorly on a lot of radars and hitting it on a windy, cloudy, moonless night...even with a good visual watch...would be a real hazard).

Those are my instincts. Nine times out of 10, you would probably just notify the nearest land-based coast guard or civil authorities with a position fix and observations of drift, wind, etc. so that someone with a bigger ship could throw a line on it or put a shell through it.

The exceptions to this might be if a derelict came to rest inside a lagoon or beached/stranded on an uninhabited atoll somewhere, but that's again a case for the civil authorities.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> The authorities in many countries would be asking how you came upon the vessel in tow, and what happened to the captain and crew of said vessel, and in many cases could hold you responsible for their disappearance until proven otherwise... That's the world of hurt I think Valiente is trying to avoid.


Well, I hadn't even _got _to the "what if they assume you are a murderous pirate cleverly disguised as a cruising family" issue, but yes, that is yet another serious consideration.

If I _was _able to board a derelict yacht (big if), and I _did _find salvageable goods (bigger if), if I came across personal papers or keepsakes (assuming it was even safe to hang around aboard a possibly sinking boat or a closing weather window), I would likely anonymously mail such items to the owners (if I could find out if they were alive!) with the information that I had scuttled their boat.

A small comfort to some, perhaps, but they wouldn't waste time looking for it.

Some might find this course cold or exploitive. Too bad. My first responsibility is to the safety of my crew and to other mariners. A derelict yacht is a hazard, and it's not my job to take it under tow except in very specific circumstances.

If I find crew aboard, the whole situation changes, as it is a _rescue_, not a _salvage_.


----------



## donradclife (May 19, 2007)

During the current Vendee Globe, a multi? million dollar raceboat was abandoned when the skipper was injured and the Australian Navy refused to take civilian volunteers out to preserve the boat when the skipper was taken off. Satellite tracking devices were operating and the shore team organized a fishing vessel to find the boat, but they gave up after a day or two of bad weather. If they gave up, it gives you an idea of the cost effectiveness of getting an abandoned vessel more than 25 miles to safe harbor.


----------



## US27inKS (Feb 6, 2005)

I read a story some time ago about 3 guys on their way from the east coast (Baltimore area perhaps) to Bermuda coming across a 40 foot sailboat. The boat had been dismasted but was otherwise intact. They pulled alongside and one of the crew climbed aboard the boat, and sunk it.

Turns out the boat had been adrift for 2 years. A french solo sailor had left home for the Caribbean, never to be heard from again. They contacted the USCG about it, and were thanked for sinking it.

Sounds like the best course of action in 99% of all cases.


----------



## Stonehenge (Sep 3, 2008)

How 'bout adrift and derelict sailors?


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

donradclife said:


> During the current Vendee Globe, a multi? million dollar raceboat was abandoned when the skipper was injured and the Australian Navy refused to take civilian volunteers out to preserve the boat when the skipper was taken off. Satellite tracking devices were operating and the shore team organized a fishing vessel to find the boat, but they gave up after a day or two of bad weather. If they gave up, it gives you an idea of the cost effectiveness of getting an abandoned vessel more than 25 miles to safe harbor.


This is the boat where they set the autopilot to sail her closer to land. It's amazing that they couldn't find it, even with satellite tracking. For a professional salvager (salvor?), that would be a great recovery that the race team would be very thankful to have back, even after a suitable reward.

Simply an amazing story, thanks for posting it.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Adrift on the icy northern seas, the ice closed in and sealed the fate of the _Baychimo_, causing her to elude the tolling bell and salvagers for more than 60 years!​The _Baychimo _was a fine, trim, solid steel cargo steamer of 1,322 tons, built in Sweden in 1914 and owned by the Hudson's Bay Company. Her single tall funnel, curved bridge and long high prow were well suited to withstand the floes and pack-ice of the dangerous northern waters.








She was originally used to collect furs from Eskimo trappers along the Victoria Island coast of the North West Territory of Canada. She pioneered fur trading with the Eskimo settlements around the Beaufort sea [shown at left moored at Herschel island], forging her way many times through some of the most treacherous seas in the world on her 2,000 mile round-trip. Each year she set out on a regular voyage, always a tough and difficult one, delivering food, fuel, and other supplies in exchange for pelts at eight of the Hudson's Bay Company's lonely outposts.
On 6 July 1931, she left Vancouver, British Columbia, with skipper John Cornwell and his crew of 36. They expected a hard trip, for all their runs were hard. Day and night, under the misty glow of the never-setting sun, the _Baychimo_ steamed on eastward. At each port of call, her crew labored long and hard unloading supplies and loading up valuable furs. Eventually they reached the end of their normal eastward run by the shores of Victoria Island. With the hold crammed with cargo, the _Baychimo_ was turned about for Vancouver by a relieved captain.
Unfortunately, winter came early that year to this bleak northern wasteland. Ferocious winds and deep-freezing conditions brought the dreaded pack ice south much quicker than usual. By 30 September, only a little remained open for the ship to steam through and on 1 October, the ice closed in and sealed the fate of the _Baychimo_ forever.








Her engines at stop, she could only move as the creaking, numbing ice willed [crew clearing ice from the rudder and propeller, a daily chore, left, in case she broke free]. She was not far from the Alaskan village of Barrow, where the Company had permanent huts built ashore. Seeing that a terrible blizzard was imminent, Cornwell ordered his men to trudge across the half-mile or so of ice to shelter in these huts, where they stayed for two days, half-frozen and unable to venture out.
Then the first extraordinary thing in the _Baychimo's_ strange story happened. Without warning, the pack ice loosened and moved away from the vessel's sides, leaving her movable again. The crew rushed aboard and for three solid hours, the ship steamed away to the west at full speed. Disaster seemed narrowly to have been averted.
But once more, the ice gripped the little cargo steamer. This time it did not let go and on 8 October, a sickening crack heralded the sudden appearance of a deadly black fault-line in the ice. It actually cracked right across the pitch where some of the crew were playing football, while waiting for the chance to move southwards and home once more.
Now the ice that held the ship had broken away, it began to move slowly back toward the shore. To Cornwell, it seemed only a matter of hours before his rugged little vessel would be crushed like an eggshell. Radio SOS messages were sent out, and these doughty men hung on in the hope that they and their ship might be saved. By 15 October, their plight seemed so desperate that the Hudson's Bay Company sent two aircraft from the base at Nome, 600 miles away. They rescued 22 of the _Baychimo's_ crew, leaving her skipper and 14 men behind to await the time when the melting ice would release their ship and its precious cargo. Knowing that they might have to wait as long as a year, this skeleton crew built a small shelter on the pack ice about one mile from the shore.
Their sojourn proved to be short and startling. On the pitch-black night of 24 November, a hellish blizzard trapped the men inside their wooden shelter. When the storm abated, they emerged into the wintry gloom to find that the _Baychimo_ had completely vanished beneath grotesque mountains of ice 70ft high. They searched as much as they could, before concluding that she had been broken to pieces in the blizzard and had sunk.
The men reached the safety of the mainland and prepared to get home before the worst winter weather set in. In a few days, however, an Eskimo seal hunter brought the astonishing news that he had seen their ship some 45 miles away to the southwest. Already the _Baychimo_ had been turned willy-nilly by the inexorable forces of nature into a ghost ship, a polar puppet pushed this way and that by the power of ice, wind and water. The 15 men trudged to where the Eskimo told them......and there was their ship!
It was now obvious to Captain Cornwell that the chances of salvaging his vessel were nil. The ice simply was not going to let him. So they rescued the more valuable furs from the hold and reluctantly left the _Baychimo_ forever. In due course, they were flown back home, thankful to be alive.








As the months went by, the Company's base in Vancouver received strange reports from the Eskimos that their long-lost ship had again been sighted, this time several hundred miles to the east. On 12 March 1932, a young trapper and explorer named Leslie Melvin found her on a journey from Herschel Island to Nome by dog-team. She was floating inshore peacefully enough. He boarded her and found many of the furs in her hold still intact. Unfortunately, as he was alone and without much equipment many hundred of miles away from his base in Alaska, he could do nothing.
Some months went by and a group of wandering prospectors saw her and also managed to get on board, reporting everything in perfect order. In March 1933, the _Baychimo_ had apparently drifted back roughly to where her captain had deserted her, floating idly in the freezing waters. Some 30 Eskimos reached her by kayak, but no sooner had they clambered aboard than another terrific storm blew up. Those petrified natives were to be trapped on the ghost ship without food for 10 days before they could get away. By August 1933, the Hudson's Bay Company knew that the _Baychimo_ was now moving calmly in a northerly direction, but she was still much too far from civilization to make salvage operations possible. The _Baychimo's_ next visitors were an exploring party on a schooner, among whom was Miss Isobel Hutchinson, a Scottish botanist. That was in July 1934, and they boarded her for a few hours.
By now, the legend of the little, gray, tall-funneled ghost ship was well-known among the Artic Eskimos, many of them spotting her from time to time on their nomadic travels. By September 1935, she had reached the Alaskan coast. Always, she evaded the crushing grip of the pack ice and survived the worst polar storms. Nature seemed unable to destroy her, but man was equally unable to rescue her.
One man, however, was intent on salvaging the wandering ship. He was Captain Hugh Polson, who in November 1939 spotted her at a considerable distance from his ship. He managed to board her, but in the end was prevented from salvaging her by the creeping ice floes.
After 1939, the _Baychimo_ was seen several scores of times, mostly by Eskimos, but occasionally by white explorers, traders and fliers. Every time, she eluded whatever pursuit was possible, and over the intervening years, she has sailed, crewless and alone, many thousands of ice-girt miles.
In March 1962, a small party of Eskimos discovered her again while fishing from their kayaks. This time, she was floating serenely off a desolate strip of coastline on the Beaufort Sea.
Once again, there was no means of capturing her, so they left the desolate, rusting, but still uncrushed hulk to drift away into the unknown once more. The last recorded sighting was in 1969, 38 years after she was abandoned. Eskimos found her once more, stuck fast in the pack ice of the Beaufort Sea between icy Cape and Point Barrow.
In the early 1990's, a representative of the Hudson's Bay Company, at their headquarters in Winnipeg, said they cannot say definitely whether or not the _Baychimo_ is still afloat. So, it seems likely that the _Baychimo_ will sail on, a fabulous gray ghost that refuses to enter the limbo of lost ships or return to the control of man.​







Vancouver Sun, Thursday, May 4, 2006
The Last Voyage of the Baychimo
​


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

That's a hell of a story, Bubb. Thanks.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

That is a great story. I guess all that ice kept her from running aground, which would have been her fate had she been more to the south.


----------

