View Poll Results: Who should pay for these search and rescues?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • The State should provide this service for anyone in distress

    4 11.43%
  • There should be a case by case review based on the risk taker's level of responsiblity

    11 31.43%
  • The risk taker should pay on a sliding scale, depending on his income

    5 14.29%
  • If you risk your life and an expensive rescue ensues, it should be 100% your responsibility

    10 28.57%
  • Other, please explain

    5 14.29%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    LIBTARDISTAN
    Last Seen
    05-01-10 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,629

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Placing cardboard boxes too close to a space heater is just as negligent as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano. In both instances, rescue efforts were undertaken because of their carelessness and in both instances, these individuals should be required to reimburse the taxpayers.
    Again, your comparison is flawed, unless you are advocating 'Paygo'......
    If I can opt out of the service & not pay for it, fine......
    But the fact is that fire services benefit general public safety, the mountantop SAR scenario does not........
    Your postion is as untenable as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano, I suggest you withdraw to a safer footing......

  2. #22
    You kids get off my lawn!
    Glinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-11-11 @ 02:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,716

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    Placing cardboard boxes too close to a space heater is just as negligent as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano.
    Yes, but Partisan makes a great point: Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident. Putting a cardboard box too close to a heater is most likely an accident, and not intentional at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    In both instances, rescue efforts were undertaken because of their carelessness and in both instances, these individuals should be required to reimburse the taxpayers.
    I disagree. I think climbers carry an extra burden, in that they have intentionally set out to do something dangerous, while putting something a bit too close to a heater can't really be considered an intentional act.

    In addition, putting out a house fire is generally a pretty basic thing, while using important emergency equipment and sending hundreds of people and animals out to risk their lives in bad weather in dangerous localities to try to locate some fool who intentionally climbed a mountain and got lost, is not.

  3. #23
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    Yes, but Partisan makes a great point: Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident. Putting a cardboard box too close to a heater is most likely an accident, and not intentional at all.
    It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    LIBTARDISTAN
    Last Seen
    05-01-10 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,629

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.
    You might be considered negligent for ignoring the facts......

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    The people being rescued, of course.

    Or their families, if they want to see the bodies again.

    What the hell, may as well let them pay for the inexpensive S&R's, too.

    There is this strange idea called "insurance", where people who want to climb, etc, pay a fee for the permit, which would then cover them if they need strangers to haul their ass out. Works for cars, works for boats, works for houses, would work for people who insist on putting themselves in situations they can't handle.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 02-16-10 at 02:33 PM.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,431

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.
    I think willfull negligence should be punished, but not normal everyday actions

    A grease fire, burning your house down, no

    Building a fire pit in your basement, that eventually burns your housedown yes

    Getting lost or injured on a well known hiking trail, no

    Getting lost in the deep wilds, where no one knows where you arse going in the middle of winter yes

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.
    Punished?

    No.

    Just not something others should be expected to pay for.

    And getting lost in the woods, getting hurt mountain climbing, skiing into a tree, is always, at the bottom, negligent.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrusaderRabbit08 View Post
    On a related note; if someone's negligence causes their house to catch fire, shouldn't they be required to reimburse the city for fighting that fire?
    Shouldn't they be required to pay for the costs, anyway?

    Is there some rule that if someone's property is damaged by their own incompetence they have to pay for it, but if they can show it's just that God hated them then someone else should have to pay for their lost property?

    Where's the sense in that?

    They lost property. Why should others lose property to cover them?

  9. #29
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    07-11-11 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,249

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    I think willfull negligence should be punished, but not normal everyday actions

    A grease fire, burning your house down, no

    Building a fire pit in your basement, that eventually burns your housedown yes

    Getting lost or injured on a well known hiking trail, no

    Getting lost in the deep wilds, where no one knows where you arse going in the middle of winter yes
    Let me add to this one. I know a fella who is a frequent back country hiker (as am I) who had to be rescued because while checking out the bottom of a waterfall, he slipped and fell into the deep fast rushing water, was swept downstream towards yet another large waterfall and had to be rescued from a boulder smack in the middle of the waterfall!

    He survived, they did rescue him and he was mighty embarrassed. Afterward he went to court, and while the national park he was hiking in had public trails which alone offer their own hazards, he elected to ignore park policy and posted signage and go down to the bottom of this waterfall. Turns out the precise reason they don't want anyone down there is the rocks and path are covered in algae and slime year round, the water is deep and fast moving and people who go down there tend to end up slipping and falling into said river!

    In the end he got a year probation and had to pay restitution as well as write a PSA about his experience. I've lost the link to the thing, but it is still out there on web somewhere. In his case, the lesson was learned.......at great expense.

    I voted "There should be a case by case review based on the risk taker's level of responsibility" and I believe that is already the law being followed in most places.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,850

    Re: Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glinda View Post
    This sort of stuff happens out here all the time. Usually, though, it's idiots who get stuck or lost up on Mt. Hood (Oregon).

    Nevertheless, I've always felt that the state (any state) shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of climbers. Climbers know they are taking risks, so the cost of those risks should be theirs to bear. The fact that my tax dollars are being wasted pisses me off even more, but the bottom line is:

    You places your bets and you takes your chances. No one else should have to cover your crappy bets when you lose.
    I agree! Remember the last trio of lost hikers on Mt. Hood refused to take beacons? There should be no choice in the matter. Take a beacon or no hiking. Period!

    They put rescuers in severe danger by expending time in making guesses as to where the hikers are stranded. It's ridiculous that they would put their own safety at further risk in refusing the beacons. They did pay the price and I'm sorry for their families.



    Quote Originally Posted by Partisan View Post
    No, it's a crappy point....
    Accidents happen in the home all the time, & one pays for fire department services through his local taxes.....
    Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident....
    I say send a volunteer search party in the spring......
    Or, how about a $100,000. non refundable fee for search & rescue, BEFORE you are alowed up?.......
    Of course you can deny coverage, at your own risk......
    Indeed, insurance is for this is a great idea. How badly does someone need to go climbing on mountains in the winter? If you want the privilege, then pay for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The people being rescued, of course.

    Or their families, if they want to see the bodies again.

    What the hell, may as well let them pay for the inexpensive S&R's, too.

    There is this strange idea called "insurance", where people who want to climb, etc, pay a fee for the permit, which would then cover them if they need strangers to haul their ass out. Works for cars, works for boats, works for houses, would work for people who insist on putting themselves in situations they can't handle.


    Why is this not the case already?


    Overall, I agree on a case by case assessment of the risk being undertaken and then charge them or not if they need rescued. Accidents happen, but as was said by someone in this thread, mountain climbing in winter is a choice and not an accident.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •