I WROTE in protest to the Echo at the sometimes summer 'four-a-day' boat related 'rescues' reported in your pages last year, not getting a single vote of support - either from other responsible boat owners or the agencies that incur the substantial costs of rescue.

It is interesting that this year a perceptive non-boat owner has recognised the 'con' perpetuated by careless and inconsiderate boat owners.

I refer of course to the enormous costs involved in 'rescuing' the incompetent, careless and inconsiderate from their own varying brands of stupidity by the RNLI both inshore and off-shore.

We are fortunate enough to own an off-shore cruiser used year round which is impeccably maintained - regardless of the debt it sometimes bring.

This is done to ensure that should we be unfortunate enough to require the assistance of the inshore/off-shore RNLI or, God forbid, air sea rescue helicopter, we are confident that our boat, her equipment, fuel state and engine are in top condition prior to rescue being required.

On the one occasion when complete engine failure occurred, the harbour master (Poole) helpfully recommended ‘sea start’, a marine AA, of which we were not a member, which cost us £175 for a tow to Wareham!

The services of the inshore RNLI would have been most welcome, in exchange for a substantial donation, this was not to be.

Either membership of Sea Start should be compulsory or a scale of charges must apply to cover the cost incurred by Coastguard, RNLI and, where needed, air sea rescue.

The attitude amongst most summertime small pleasure craft owners appears to be one of casual confidence that they only need to phone on the mobile for instant rescue - often because they couldn't be bothered to fill the fuel tank or have the engine serviced.

I like your reader are, and shall remain, an ardent supporter of the RNLI, whom have my total respect and admiration for their amazing bravery and unselfishness in all degrees of danger.

I also remain concerned at the inevitable errosion of their sole source of funding by public donation, by the undeserving.

Re-charging in these cases and legal enforcement of the invoice is both a practical and equitable solution.

The RNLI may need a financial strategy of protecting existing funding, by promoting exposure of the recharge system, which in turn would continue to encourage both existing and new supporters boat and non-boat owners to continue to give generously to such a vital service.

Once the rescuing services have risked often their own safety, used expensive gear and time, the rescue is completed by the Coastguard ‘giving advice’ - which should, in reality, be an invoice to the incompetents once back on dry land.

Of course, the greatest travesty in all of this is that the rescue services may be prevented from rescuing those, through no fault of their own, in real peril with potentially fatal consequences for those in real need.

Dominic O'Connor, Dorchester.