Should people who enjoy extreme sports be allowed to go out in stormy conditions, or is the risk to themselves and the potential cost of a rescue enough to stop them them from doing what they love?
A debate has been raging this week about surfers who went out instormy swells past Cape Kidnappers at the weekend, with observers saying the men endangered their lives and the surfers saying they take safety precautions.
Now, most of us could think of nothing worse than going out in huge seas on a cold winter day to catch waves, but surfers are a special breed. Forty-nine-year-old Francois Sneedon was one of the surfers who went out and he says that he has been surfing since he was 12 and that it is "a way of life".
This is a question that comes up from time to time, especially when diehard extreme sports men or women attempt to set or break records like crossing the Tasman in a canoe or sailing around the world alone in a yacht. Often extreme weather conditions are encountered and sometimes rescues need to be mounted at huge taxpayer expense. There have been calls for the bill to be passed on to the person rescued.
Firstly, I don't think you can ban people from doing what they are going to do anyway. Often the people going out in rough conditions are, as Mr Sneedon says, experienced surfers and know how to look after themselves. Likewise, if someone has a dream to do something that no-one else has done, they should be allowed to, as long as no-one else is put in harm's way.
If that means they have to pay for their rescue, well, so be it. I am happy for my tax dollar to be spent helping a surfer in distress, but thousands of dollars on a multiple offending extremists is another matter.
