officers instead of lifeguards?

[Angela]

Is it just me or are there others out there that are wondering why the city is hiring police officer for this summer at the beach instead of lifeguards?  If the city has the money to pay somebody then they should be paying lifeguards who are trained to save drowning people.  The things that city is doing with the $40,000 are good ideas but seriously they need lifeguards not cops, what cop (who only makes $10/hr) is going to jump in the lake with all their gear on? Plus I think they need more than one emergency phone at the beach - by the time someone makes it to the middle lifeguard stand to use the phone, the person drowning will probably already be gone or saved by someone else............. did anyone go to the meeting on this one? I had to work..............

[XLFD]

I'm with you, Angela.  Stearn's Beach is one of the major draws for the Ludington area, and what sort of impression are we giving to our visitors by putting one or two officers on patrol out there?  The only reason this will make the beach safer is by having people go to the other fine beaches we have around here so they don't get harassed by the seasonal officers or swim in an area proved dangerous by last year's incidents.

I thought Wally Taranko was a good police chief, but he was reported as saying (in the Tuesday LDN) that he was "concerned that the patrolers having (lifeguard) skills might affect the city's liability in the case of a tragedy." 

That's utter, and heartless, nonsense. 

[AQUAMAN]

I truly thought Taranko was wiser and more in tune than this too, he must have caught the legal hiccups from Shay and the CA too. If indeed the Lifeguard Program is such a liability, why hasn't someone sued before??, we've had them down there for many years, on and off, and no one to my knowledge did any suing for having them there, and I can't remember a single drowning case when they were on duty either.  I would expect legal and city management decisions based on experience and history to be the best indicators of such frivolity coming about, not just blathering by attorneys on big retainers with nothing else to blather about. I would expect a more likely case of suit now, after the 2010 tragedies w/o Lifeguards, than I would the opposite in the future. I guess it takes a 3 year quicky law degree to see things that are totally invisible to the eyes, eh?

[Angela]

i would think if we have any tragedies this coming summer (which I hope we do not) that some lawsuits ought to be flying against the city for not having the proper patrols on the beach - this isn't Holland where the police are also fire fighters and EMTs and everything else - What we are going to get down there is some rookie cop - fresh out of school from WSCC, getting paid only $10 and you think he/she will be able to save your life?

[AQUAMAN]

Great point Angela, and the main point the City Fathers let go over their proverbial empty heads, some rookie, or even seasoned cop, or what I heard was going to be Park Rangers, are supposed to "save lives in dangerous undertoes and gail force storms"??? NOT! Ol Pappy used to say, "Do the job right, or don't do it at all", maybe corny today, buy I think it fits here.

[Angela]

from my understanding they are going to be officers down there because it said in the LDN - I dont know the exact quote, but it said something like hiring police officers so they can also enforce laws. In order to enforce laws they have to be a cop.......

[Willy]

Is there so much trouble at the beach that the situation requires "beach police"?

[XLFD]

I include here a valuable link which mulls over the various issues involving whether it is better to hire or go without lifeguards using statistical data and considers both sides' arguments.  Here is part of the summary:

"When making choices about drowning prevention interventions in their areas, decision makers must balance a sincere desire to protect the public with "real-world" issues of budgets and legal liability...

USLA data during 1988-1997 indicate that more than three-quarters of drownings at USLA sites occurred at times when beaches were unguarded and that the chances of drowning at a beach protected by lifeguards trained under USLA standards is less than one in 18 million. The four case studies provided in this report also describe the positive impact of lifeguards at beaches where multiple drownings had occurred when unguarded. When lifeguards are employed, it is vital that they be trained effectively in detecting persons in distress, and when assigned to water surveillance not be given duties other than public safety. The presence of lifeguards may deter behaviors that could put swimmers at risk for drowning, such as horseplay or venturing into rough or deep water, much like increased police presence can deter crime...

Finally, if a community develops water recreational facilities to attract patrons who spend money in the local area, then it can be argued that the community has an obligation to protect these patrons. When weighing the costs and legal implications of interventions to prevent drowning, decision makers should never lose sight of the enormous importance of protecting people from harm and preventing tragedy at beaches and pools, places where people go for pleasure, for health, and for solace."

Lifeguard Effectiveness: A Report