Finder's fee for recovered camera- is it appropriate?
- Thread starter Kicker1866
- Start date
Please register or login
Better dang well buy me a Marg I haul your GoPro from the briny deep!!!
Yes, a tip relative to the amount of trouble the captain of the boat had to go through for helping find the person who recovered it, and a Margarita (Edit: agree on the El Moro's) for the person who found it.
But if it is "common practice" to negotiate a standard fee (a day of diving) who am I to object? I do think the finder should have been the benefactor though.
DjDiverDan
Contributor
Boy, this thread would be pure gold for someone teaching in the social studies! It's got psychology, political science, and economics covered!
Let's start with many of the comments regarding how mercenary or unsavory this practice is. If you have ever taken a College level course in Psychology, you'll recognize these posts as "virtue signalling," communicating to others that "Look at me, I'm an honest person. I would ALWAYS return lost equipment which I found, and never think of asking for a reward!" Not that I'm claiming that any of these posts are false or deceitful - I'm sure these posters ARE honest. But if EVERYONE was ALWAYS honest and virtuous, we wouldn't need Government for most of what it does, and we wouldn't need a system of social customs and mores to guide our behavior. We know that not everyone is always honest. And if those people who would gladly keep a camera that they found, under the belief that "finders, keepers" is the right rule, read this thread, they will either not post any comment, or they'll lie about their intentions. So, as a matter of empiricism, we need to know just what social structures, customs, mores will best serve all of us GIVEN that not everyone is always honest.
Now let's examine the loss of scuba equipment and its recovery and return. There are three separate events - the loss of the equipment, its recovery, and its return.
On the loss of the equipment, I assume that there are at least three different kinds of people: (a) those who always exercise extreme care, connecting everything to their BCDs or their wrists with lanyards and snaps, who double-check everything, who never lose anything while scuba diving; (b) those who are habitually careless, often losing things like GoPros, masks, lights, etc.; and (c) those who fall between (a) and (b), sometimes careful, sometimes careless. Incentives won't change the behavior of those in groups (a) or (b), but they might alter the behavior of those in the middle; the expected costs of having to pay a reward may induce some, even many, in the middle group to exercise more care more often, thus reducing the incidence of lost equipment. Isn't that a positive effect?
Now look at the event of the recovery of the equipment. Again, at least three kinds of people: (a) those who will ALWAYS pick up lost equipment when they see it, even if that means going deeper than they like or fighting against a current to do it; (b) those who will NEVER interrupt their diving to pick up someone else's lost equipment; and (c) those in the middle, who will gladly pick up lost equipment as long as it is not inconvenient or imposes any cost. Once again, incentives make no difference to those in groups (a) or (b), but if the expectation of a reward was high enough, it might well result in many people in group (c) to stop and pick up more lost equipment. Once again, more lost equipment removed from the ocean floor, more equipment recovered for owners, a positive effect.
Now look at the issue of the return of the equipment to its owner. Once again, at least three different kinds of people: (a) those who will ALWAYS return it to the rightful owner as a matter of moral imperative; (b) those who will NEVER return it, believing that "finders, keepers" is the right rule, and that the owner should have been more careful; and (c) those who fall in the middle, who might feel badly (a little bit) about keeping someone else's stuff, but not badly enough to go out of their way to effect a return. Once again, incentives mean nothing to groups (a) and (b), but may well move some, or a lot, of group (c) people to return the goods to the rightful owners, meaning more people get their stuff back.
So, I submit to you that the custom or practice of requiring a reward of some amount (trying to figure out just what the right amount is is a much more difficult question) serves a socially useful purpose and increases overall welfare of divers careless enough to drop their cameras.
Let's start with many of the comments regarding how mercenary or unsavory this practice is. If you have ever taken a College level course in Psychology, you'll recognize these posts as "virtue signalling," communicating to others that "Look at me, I'm an honest person. I would ALWAYS return lost equipment which I found, and never think of asking for a reward!" Not that I'm claiming that any of these posts are false or deceitful - I'm sure these posters ARE honest. But if EVERYONE was ALWAYS honest and virtuous, we wouldn't need Government for most of what it does, and we wouldn't need a system of social customs and mores to guide our behavior. We know that not everyone is always honest. And if those people who would gladly keep a camera that they found, under the belief that "finders, keepers" is the right rule, read this thread, they will either not post any comment, or they'll lie about their intentions. So, as a matter of empiricism, we need to know just what social structures, customs, mores will best serve all of us GIVEN that not everyone is always honest.
Now let's examine the loss of scuba equipment and its recovery and return. There are three separate events - the loss of the equipment, its recovery, and its return.
On the loss of the equipment, I assume that there are at least three different kinds of people: (a) those who always exercise extreme care, connecting everything to their BCDs or their wrists with lanyards and snaps, who double-check everything, who never lose anything while scuba diving; (b) those who are habitually careless, often losing things like GoPros, masks, lights, etc.; and (c) those who fall between (a) and (b), sometimes careful, sometimes careless. Incentives won't change the behavior of those in groups (a) or (b), but they might alter the behavior of those in the middle; the expected costs of having to pay a reward may induce some, even many, in the middle group to exercise more care more often, thus reducing the incidence of lost equipment. Isn't that a positive effect?
Now look at the event of the recovery of the equipment. Again, at least three kinds of people: (a) those who will ALWAYS pick up lost equipment when they see it, even if that means going deeper than they like or fighting against a current to do it; (b) those who will NEVER interrupt their diving to pick up someone else's lost equipment; and (c) those in the middle, who will gladly pick up lost equipment as long as it is not inconvenient or imposes any cost. Once again, incentives make no difference to those in groups (a) or (b), but if the expectation of a reward was high enough, it might well result in many people in group (c) to stop and pick up more lost equipment. Once again, more lost equipment removed from the ocean floor, more equipment recovered for owners, a positive effect.
Now look at the issue of the return of the equipment to its owner. Once again, at least three different kinds of people: (a) those who will ALWAYS return it to the rightful owner as a matter of moral imperative; (b) those who will NEVER return it, believing that "finders, keepers" is the right rule, and that the owner should have been more careful; and (c) those who fall in the middle, who might feel badly (a little bit) about keeping someone else's stuff, but not badly enough to go out of their way to effect a return. Once again, incentives mean nothing to groups (a) and (b), but may well move some, or a lot, of group (c) people to return the goods to the rightful owners, meaning more people get their stuff back.
So, I submit to you that the custom or practice of requiring a reward of some amount (trying to figure out just what the right amount is is a much more difficult question) serves a socially useful purpose and increases overall welfare of divers careless enough to drop their cameras.
AdivingBel
Diver
If that is the thought processes of the masses, so be it. It's not the world I want to participate in. I'm truly not naïve. I get how "mercenary" the world is and outwardly more so at this particular time (it's always been that way, outward perception just seems to swing back and forth over time). All I can do is my little part which allows me to sleep pretty well for the most part. C'mon man, it's their stuff. You just happened across it. You haven't risked or invested anything. Don't justify it, just give it back. Is that really so hard?? 
A problem old as sailors...
"The law of salvage is a concept in maritime law which states that a person who recovers another person's ship or cargo after peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of the property so saved."
"The law of salvage is a concept in maritime law which states that a person who recovers another person's ship or cargo after peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of the property so saved."
Last edited:
A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
OP
Kicker1866
Contributor
Well, I did some research on this and I think my dive op was acting properly and was defending his client against someone attempting to take advantage of us not knowing how things worked.
If someone recovered $1,000 + of gear for me... it is worth a Bill for sure. Interesting to learn of this custom and I appreciate my dive op big time.
And to clarify, my buddy got the $60
If someone recovered $1,000 + of gear for me... it is worth a Bill for sure. Interesting to learn of this custom and I appreciate my dive op big time.
And to clarify, my buddy got the $60
Any decent discussion eventually turns to philosophy.
I'm going to say no - this is not a "thing" - and I find it surprising that the actual owner was involved in this negotiation. If I had lost a valuable camera rig, I would certainly offer a reward - but to be manipulated and coerced into one is bad juju! The saying "do unto others" comes to mind. Return the camera because it's the RIGHT THING to do- nt because there is a monetary reward attached.
In fact, I remember awhile back, my crew found a large boat bumper in the water (not quite as valuable as a camera rig - but they aren't cheap, especially the big ones). The name of the boat was barely legible, but it was legible. My crew wanted to have the other shop pay them to return it - my crew are WONDERFUL guys - but when I explained how unethical this really was - they got it and they returned the boat bumper. To their surprise, doing the right thing still got them a reward from the other shop owner.
Just my 2 pesos
In fact, I remember awhile back, my crew found a large boat bumper in the water (not quite as valuable as a camera rig - but they aren't cheap, especially the big ones). The name of the boat was barely legible, but it was legible. My crew wanted to have the other shop pay them to return it - my crew are WONDERFUL guys - but when I explained how unethical this really was - they got it and they returned the boat bumper. To their surprise, doing the right thing still got them a reward from the other shop owner.
Just my 2 pesos
This has been an interesting thread.
Similar threads
