Coast Guard calls off search for missing captain of boat that sank near Westport
The search effort for a missing 44-year-old man, who was aboard a fishing boat that sank near Westport, was called off on Friday night, according to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
The 68-foot 'Captain Raleigh' was at sea on Friday morning when those onboard sent out a distress call that it was taking on water, the Coast Guard said in a release.
A rescue crew from Station Grays Harbor arrived around 15 minutes after the distress call was placed, and the Captain Raleigh quickly sank.
The Coast Guard crew rescued three people in the water who were wearing life vests, but reported the captain of the boat was still aboard, the release said.
Search teams from Coast Guard Air Station Astoria and the U.S. Navy were called in to help search for the missing man.
A dredging boat from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was also called in to help locate the Captain Raleigh, which was found at 11:45 a.m. on Saturday morning.
A Navy dive team located the wreck site but was unable to get inside the vessel due to poor conditions, the Coast Guard said.
The search for the missing captain was suspended on Friday night around 8:40 p.m.
'This is a tragedy for our fishing communities,' said Capt. Justin Noggle, commander of Coast Guard Sector Columbia River. 'I'm thankful our Coast Guard crews were able to save the three crewmembers quickly, and our hearts are with the family and friends of everyone impacted by this tremendous loss.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Selfishness Is Not a Virtue
When Christianity goes wrong, it goes wrong in a familiar way. Last Friday, at a town hall meeting in Butler County, Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst delivered a grim message to her constituents. In the midst of an exchange over Medicaid cuts in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' someone in the crowd shouted at Ernst, 'People are going to die!' Ernst's immediate response was bizarre. 'Well, we all are going to die,' she said. True enough, but that's irrelevant to the question at hand. Yes, we're all going to die, but it matters a great deal when, how and why. There's a tremendous difference between dying after living a long and full life that's enabled at least in part by access to decent health care, and dying a premature and perhaps needlessly painful death because you can't afford the care you need. All of this should be too obvious to explain, and it would cost Ernst — who occupies a relatively safe seat in an increasingly red state — virtually nothing to apologize and move on. In fact, just after her flippant comment, she did emphasize that she wanted to protect vulnerable people. The full answer was more complicated than the headline-generating quip. By the standards of 2025, Ernst's comment would have been little more than a micro-scandal, gone by the end of the day. And if we lived even in the relatively recent past, demonstrating humility could have worked to her benefit. It can be inspiring to watch a person genuinely apologize. But we're in a new normal now. That means no apologies. That means doubling down. And that can also mean tying your cruelty to the Christian cross. And so, the next day Ernst posted an apology video — filmed, incredibly enough, in what appears to be a cemetery. It began well. 'I would like to take this opportunity,' she said, 'to sincerely apologize for a statement I made yesterday at my town hall.' But her statement devolved from there. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Ken Jennings: Trivia and ‘Jeopardy!' Could Save Our Republic
When I first stepped behind the host lectern on the quiz show 'Jeopardy!,' I was intimidated for two reasons. Most obviously, I had the hopeless task of filling the very large shoes of Alex Trebek, the legendary broadcaster and pitch-perfect host who'd been synonymous with the show since 1984. But I was also keenly aware that the show was one of TV's great institutions, almost a public trust. Since I was 10 years old, I'd watched Alex Trebek carve out a safe space for people to know things, where viewers get a steady diet of 61 accurate (and hopefully even interesting) facts every game. And I wondered: Even if 'Jeopardy!' could survive the loss in 2020 of its peerless host, could it survive the conspiracy theories and fake news of our post-fact era? Facts may seem faintly old-timey in the 21st century, remnants of the rote learning style that went out of fashion in classrooms (and that the internet search made obsolete) decades ago. But societies are built on facts, as we can see more clearly when institutions built on knowledge teeter. Inaccurate facts make for less informed decisions. Less informed decisions make for bad policy. Garbage in, garbage out. I've always hated the fact that 'trivia,' really our only word in English for general-knowledge facts and games, is the same word we use to mean 'things of no importance.' So unfair! Etymologically, the word is linked to the trivium of medieval universities, the three fundamental courses of grammar, rhetoric and logic. And much of today's so-called trivia still deals with subjects that are fundamentally academic. Watch a game of 'Jeopardy!' tonight, or head down to your local pub quiz, and you're sure to be asked about scientific breakthroughs, milestones of history and masterpieces of art. Trivia, maybe — but far from trivial. There might also be questions about pop lyrics and sports statistics, but even those are markers of cultural literacy, the kind of shared knowledge that used to tie society together: the proposition that factual questions could be answered correctly or not, that those answers matter, and that we largely agreed on the authorities and experts who could confirm them. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
A Starter Pack for Aspiring Wine Lovers
Here's a little secret about wine — it's great fun. It's delicious, too. You would never know this to hear people talk about wine. Too often, it is buried under a mass of nonsense that has nothing to do with the pleasure and joy it offers. It's discussed with painstaking precision using complex terminology and pretension, as tasters grapple with metaphorical descriptions of aromas and flavors, and conjecture about methodology and equipment. They ultimately deconstruct wine like anatomy students dismembering a cadaver. It makes wine seem like very serious business, which, for many people, is a turnoff. Wine does deserve academic discussion. It can be complicated, with many mysterious elements that people strive to understand. Yet it's also a simple pleasure, a great drink. The serious, rational side of wine should not overwhelm its emotional appeal. Dry talk about learning to 'appreciate' wine obscures the fact that people deeply, passionately love it. It's the difference between fulfilling an obligation and being moved by desire. Reconciling these two sides of wine can be baffling. It's no wonder that people are hesitant about wine, especially young people, many of whom also fear alcohol as risky. Almost everybody finds it intimidating and often more expensive than other alcoholic drinks. Nonetheless, people are often curious, too. Perhaps they've seen people enjoying it, and they may have heard that humans have considered wine a great pleasure for thousands of years. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
