
Paul Allen's yacht destroyed 14,000 sq.ft of reef in the West Bay Caymans - Jerry2
https://caymannewsservice.com/2016/01/billionaire-boater-destroys-wb-reef/?utm_source=CNS+Newsflash&utm_campaign=ff59f693b6-26_1_16_early_poll&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e5aea46d5d-ff59f693b6-59643737
======
McKayDavis
I'll take this opportunity to point out that Paul Allen is a strong supporter
of research to save the ocean's coral reefs.

Last June he funded [1] a nearly $4 MM USD 5 yr project for researchers at the
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (HIMB)
[2] and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) to study assisted
evolution to increase the resilience of coral species.

[1] [http://www.vulcan.com/news/articles/2015/coral-reef-
research...](http://www.vulcan.com/news/articles/2015/coral-reef-research-
support)

[2] [http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2015/08/04/ruth-gates-research-
to...](http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2015/08/04/ruth-gates-research-to-reverse-
rapid-coral-reef-decline-supported-by-paul-g-allen/)

(disclaimer: my wife works at HIMB)

edit: It looks as this comment is viewed by some as excusing the incident --
that's not the intent. I just wanted to point out that Mr. Allen was already
helping to _save_ reefs, not destroy them.

~~~
sandworm101
Donating to MADD doesn't get one out of obeying traffic laws. If anything,
this shows that Allen was well aware of how sensitive reefs are and so should
have made sure his boat wasn't part of the problem.

~~~
dogma1138
You do understand that while this is a nice head line it's not his "fault" in
any other means than owning a yacht.

The yacht has a captain and a crew they are responsible for managing the ship
and unless Paul Allen was yelling at them threatening to fire them if they do
not plow into the coral reef it's just an unfortunate event that the media
likes to blow up because hey it's another rich guy with a yacht.

~~~
sandworm101
Fault no, responsibility yes. Owners of vessels like these are responsible for
the damage they do, just like any other employer.

~~~
tw04
Most of these yachts are rented out by their owners. I don't see anything in
the article stating he was even on the ship. I'm not sure how you can hold him
responsible if he wasn't even on the ship at the time this occurred.

~~~
sandworm101
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior)

>> ... a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer
is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of
their employment.

~~~
dogma1138
"When applied to physical torts, an employer-employee relationship must be
established (meaning that no vicarious liability is established for work
performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within
the scope of employment (i.e., substantially within time and geographical
limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's
business)."

Don't think that it really falls under this legal doctrine. I'm pretty sure
he'll feel responsible non the less but doesn't it mean he's liable and it
sure doesn't mean that it needs to be overblown in this manner. Cargo ships do
much more damage to the environment on a daily basis. That said he most
definitely owns the Yacht he owns several his biggest Yacht is often loaned to
researchers.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(yacht)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_\(yacht\))

The cause for the incident is probably more interesting as if the damage was
done while mooring it begs a question why is there a mooring spot so close to
a coral reserve in the first place.

~~~
sandworm101
The issue isn't who rented the boat. It's who paid the captain/crew. That is
most likely some holding/management company in turn owned by Allen. Insurance
is also at play. It's no different than if a bus driver crashes. The
passengers on the bus aren't responsible, nor is the person who hired the bus.
It is the bus owner.

If the owner is not held, then the only people left are the employees. They
don't earn enough to ever pay fines associated with this sort of accident. So
it's either the owners or nobody.

------
sandworm101
>>> Allen’s communication team shows the billionaire is not taking
responsibility and implicated the Port Authority, saying the crew followed
officials’ instructions on where to place the vessel.

Don't care. Captains are always 100% responsible for the movement of their
ship. Though rare in practice, captains are expected to override anyone,
including pilots, to ensure safe and lawful operation of their vessels. The
captain works for the owner. The owner is financially responsible for mistakes
of his employee. Allen should pay up.

~~~
kriro
The official who gave these instructions should also be fired. I find it
interesting that the discussion centers around Allen. I'd argue that the
official who supposedly gave the instructions is the person most responsible
and yet I see less pitchforks for him/her than for Allen.

Doesn't mean Allen/the captain is innocent but it's odd how the focus of the
debate is centered around them. Guess the "evil rich dude" narrative is more
fun than the "incompetent official" one. I guess the headline "Incompetent
official instructs ship to destroy reef." gets less clicks.

~~~
sandworm101
Because Allen, not the captain, is the on refusing responsibility for the
damage done by his boat.

------
aokyler
I don't see how the airings of Paul Allen's yacht news is particularly
relevant to Hacker News. It's gossip, at best. Even in the guise of having
conversation around environmental responsibility.

~~~
onion2k
I agree that it doesn't add much to HN when stories like this are voted up on
to the front page, but the implied alternative where stories like this are
purposefully blocked from being on the front page by some mechanism is _so
much worse_. It's far better to accept a little irrelevant gossip at the cost
of the community than to start censoring what we can vote on and destroy the
integrity on HN altogether.

~~~
aokyler
Right, I agree with that completely - I'm more suggesting we should be a bit
ashamed of ourselves as a community for pushing the equivalent of tech tabloid
news to the front page.

There are more appropriate mediums to argue in if we feel Paul Allen isn't
responding well enough to "the incident".

------
jonathankoren
"Any vessel that causes damage to local reefs can be fined. However, despite a
number of incidents of reef damage over the last few years by both cruise
ships and luxury yachts, the government has failed to collect on sanctions."

What the fuck?

~~~
cjhveal
I'd guess that they're balancing levying fines against these entities and the
tourism/money that they're bringing to the islands.

~~~
acqq
Can anybody demonstrate the "balance"? I always had an impression that yachts
don't pay much to the average place where they anchor but only to the marinas?

~~~
kika
If this had happened in the so called "marine park" then it usually means that
the yacht paid the "mooring fee" for just the right to drop an anchor in the
designated space. Designated by the "local authority", btw. And for megayachts
these fees are quite high (hundreds or thousands of dollars).

------
a_bonobo
That yacht hosts one of the SeaKeeper oceanographic monitoring systems for the
SeaKeeper society, so for it to destroy a reef while (automatically) measuring
sea health is a bit ironic

~~~
plorg
Link for the curious: [http://www.seakeepers.org/](http://www.seakeepers.org/)

For me this doesn't seem to show up on the first page of Google results for
"SeaKeeper". Instead there's a gyro roll-stabilizing device for yachts that
goes by the same name. This made me question whether you had confused two
devices on the yacht. But a more precise Googling did in fact find the society
you mention.

------
stevecalifornia
It is terrifying and sad to see the world I grew up with slowly ground away
through negligence. As an eleven year old I went snorkeling for the first time
in the pristine Caymans. In my short life-time (I'm only mid-thirties) I have
seen the great reefs I once explored demolished.

I can't even... I am just floored at how quickly we destroy things that took
ages to grow.

~~~
sandworm101
While a shame, this sort of damage is not totally unnatural. Hurricanes have
been decimating reefs for millions of years. A drifting tree trunk, at low
tide in moderate surf, can do this much damage in a few minutes. The real
manmade reef killers are chemical, not physical.

~~~
toomuchtodo
True! Global warming/climate change is destroying vast quantities of reefs,
yet people latch on to events like this.

------
aresant
Fer goodness sakes, it's not like he was insensitive to the delicate ecosystem
- I mean the guy just brought his small yacht - the Tatoosh (303ft) - not the
big one (the 400+ ft Octopus)!

The way you people are carrying on youd think we were dealing with a
megalomaniac here.

(1)
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(yacht)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_\(yacht\))

------
onewaystreet
This has been a recurring issue in the Caymans. Just a few months ago the reef
was damaged by a cruise ship. There has been a long debate between the Cayman
government and environmental groups over building a large pier to better
handle cruise ships and yachts. Environmental groups have been fighting it
because some of the reef would have to be relocated to build it.

------
teraflop
Pedantic point of clarification: there's no such thing as "the West Bay
Caymans". The damage happened off the coast of the West Bay district of Grand
Cayman.

------
_pmf_
It's OK, guys, he's rich. Let's go back to telling developing countries that
they should respect the environment more.

------
luckydata
Good thing our loose regulations help those responsible individuals amass
immense fortunes to be used to the benefit of mankind. Exactly like Paul
Graham explained in his "thoughtful" essay.

Oh, wait...

~~~
tempestn
Paul Allen has pledged to give the majority of his fortune away[1][2], and has
already founded the Allen Institutes for Brain Science and Cell Science, among
other charitable endeavours (not that he's under any obligation to do either).
So he spent a tiny fraction of his wealth on a yacht (which also employs
people for what it's worth). Should he be putting 100% of his savings toward
the benefit of mankind instead of only 99%?

[1] [http://givingpledge.org/](http://givingpledge.org/) [2]
[http://givingpledge.org/pdf/pledge-
letters/Allen_Letter.pdf](http://givingpledge.org/pdf/pledge-
letters/Allen_Letter.pdf)

~~~
lmm
The percentage you give away is a less relevant measure than how much you
keep. To me it seems obscene for an individual to own a 300ft yacht.

~~~
Silhouette
_To me it seems obscene for an individual to own a 300ft yacht._

Well, OK, you're obviously entitled to your own opinion and principles. But
where then do you draw the line between what is obscene and what is not?

If you've ever travelled to a foreign country on holiday, you've enjoyed more
luxury in those few days than many people in the world ever will, and you
might have spent more money on your holiday than it would take to build a well
in Africa and save a whole village from multiple hours of walking every day
just to access potable water.

If you've ever had major medical support paid for by some form of insurance or
national healthcare provider, you've probably enjoyed better treatment than is
accessible to most people in developing economies today.

If you've ever had a $5 drink in a coffee shop, the money you spent on that
could have bought an entire meal for a homeless person in your own city who is
going hungry instead.

There is always someone richer and always someone poorer. What we regard as
obscene, in either direction, often seems to be more a subjective product of
our own background and position on the scale than any objective measure.

------
voynich61
Let's see him get reservations at Dorsia now!

