“everyone pays” unfair?
For the sake of discussion…
Wouldn’t making everyone pay for rescue be a highly regressive “mistake tax”? A $5,000 medevac fee would cause a lot more pain for a $20,000-per-year hunter than a $200,000-per-year hiker. What message does that send? That the rich can afford to be be irresponsible, but the poor have no margin for error? The woods are for the wealthy? Sounds “elitist” to me.
And what behavior might that drive? Would the prospect of a big bill make people try to solve their own problem – self-reliance being a good thing – or would they delay and be in much worse shape by the time they finally called?
I’ll bite…
A DUI in my state will cost you about $10,000, rich or poor. A parking ticket is about $35, rich or poor. Are our roads only for the wealthy? Isn’t this what we have in place right now?
The Finnish way?
– Last Updated: Nov-19-04 9:05 PM EST –
Fines are issued in proportion to the income you reported for the previous year. One wealthy executive paid a $217,000 (170,000 euro) speeding ticket for driving 80kph in a 40 zone.
Start by looking in outside magazine
or asking international mountain equipment in NH
You wont need it unless you are planning something ridiculous though. That the point the SAr people are generous but tired of idiots.
Costs about 7K year for worlwide Sar and evac insurance. Last I looked.
charging for rescues bad idea
once you make that a precendence, you will have people that avoid calling for a rescue for fear of being charged. It can make a bad situation worse. Any SAR person wants the call to come in early as possible. Charging people, even complete and willfull idiots, is a wicked bad idea. People make mistakes and picking and choosing which mistakes are acceptable are for people that think they wont make a mistake. Firemen are wrestling with that all over. Well, not the firemen but the towns they work for. I know several firemen that think charging for rescues is a terrible idea that creates big probelms for rescuers.
What if there was no rescue???
OK, NOT saying this is right, good, etc. Just for thinking sake,
Would any of us, novices, the public, etc. make decisions any differently if the deal was NO RESCUE, ever, period. (Like when stay in a hurricane and ask you to leave, you don’t, they say OK, no help then). Would we change the adventure/safety equation at all? In what ways if so?
This is a mental game I play with myself at times to get honest with my own tendency to drift into making choices that are less than great. But is the fact that search and rescue has become such an entitlement that we have simply allowed ourselves to take more risks and forget that SRS folks don’t have lives and families too and want to only go so far in endangering themselves. At least useful for me to keep this in mind.
This Is How I Would
anser your question above.
When I say “all”, I mean all rescuees, regardless of any attempt to define each as “skilled” or “unskilled.” The notion that someone who is supposedly skilled and gets into trouble and needs a rescue, without any penalty, smacks of “elitism.” It will also support the idea of mandatory “certification” as way to determine who is skilled or not, who should be out there or not.
sing
Does anyone subscribe to
Adirondack magazine? My friend John does and I was over at his house a couple of months ago reading some articles in the stack of Adk mags on his coffee table.One article was about the exact subject of this thread, rescues particularly in the Adirondack region.
One story went like this: (I don’t remember every detail) Solo canoeist paddles into fairly remote campsite,sets up camp and then injures himself.
He calls SAR on his cell phone and they pick him up and take him to the hospital,fix him up and release him but his boat and gear are still in the bush so he makes his way back in to retrieve his stuff and gets stranded in the dark so he calls SAR again and they take him out the second time in the same day.
They charged him big money the second time.
It was pretty funny unless your the SARS guy working overtime to babysit this moron.
Should be a mandatory vasectomy for guys like this,don’t want his genes to be cast too far.
The flip side is…
– Last Updated: Nov-21-04 11:57 AM EST –
...that if people know that they're likely to be charged for a rescue, they're less likely to do something that might require a rescue. That's the whole point of charging for rescues; it's a deterrent to stupid and irresponsible behavior.
It's one thing for an otherwise prepared hiker/climber to need a rescue due to an accident and quite another when an unprepared idiot goes into the backcountry figuring his cell phone will get him an instant, free bailout. The latter deserves to pay for his/her stupidity.
ADK PLB rescues
– Last Updated: Nov-20-04 8:57 AM EST –
http://www.adirondacklife.com/template/OnlineFeatureDetail/assetid/31417
If you can't get the link to work google Carl Skalak. Read the Adirondack Life Feb. 2004 copy to get the accurate details, as opposed to the erroneous content of the post by old inuit.
everything is connected to everything
– Last Updated: Nov-20-04 9:19 AM EST –
Wow, sing, I never thought of it that way but there is possibly something to the idea that once we don't take full responsibility for our actions it leads to elitist ethic, and only a few steps away is the tiered some are more deserving, get it free deal, and certification etc.
I guess this is how senators and consgressmen get eletist health care and pensions that are many times that of ordinary citizens.
At any rate, I have rethought this and now tend to agree with you that I should put my money where my paddle goes and if need a rescue pay for it, and more importantly, remember it is not like being on a ski slope where no one has to risk themselves to cart you to the hospital should you screw up for whatever reason.
I do think that hurricanes more people now leave rather than risk it all knowing no help is coming, so I do think it would make some difference if rescues were less available and had a cost. Yes people might hesitate to call one in, don't have a good answer to that one yet, but maybe that is somehow a good thing, inducing people to think before acting.
Again, thanks for interesting viewpoint.
I understand your reasoning
and I am glad most rescue professionals disagree with you guys.
True…
– Last Updated: Nov-20-04 11:01 AM EST –
but we all have to live somewhere and in something. Furthermore, in the city if Joe’s house is burning, Pete’s house may be next. Pete will help Joe put out the fire to save his own.
San Francisco...Mrs. O'Leary's cow comes to mind.
Paddling tends to be a personal choice.
Where would we draw the line?
Interesting points all and I certainly understand the whole venting against the “funny” things other people do but I wonder where we draw the line? Why stop at SAR? How about firefighting and accidents? Floods and tornados?
For example, if you choose to live in a hurricane zone, or a flood plain (disclaimer, I do), or tornado alley why should someone else help pay when your house or business is destroyed? Should people have to pay a portion of the firefighting costs if they have a shake roof and don’t clear a 30 foot zone around their house and live in a forest?
Should you pay more if you’re involved in an accident and were speeding? or driving dangerously for the conditions? I’m always amazed at how many people violate common laws of physics by following way, way too closely in traffic.
How would we define stupidity? IQ? Jury of peers? Community standards (I love that one!)? Laws and government regulations? Civil lawsuits?
If some “clueless” person in their 20’s incurs a “stupidity SAR fine” of several hundred thousand dollars does that mean his/her family doesn’t eat or go to college or own a home or get braces or medical care ever while he/she tries to pay off the debt on minimum wage or even 50K a year?
Again, these are all interesting points and there is certainly no lack of stupidity in the world to condemn and lament. I guess I’d have to say that I’m happy to pay taxes to rescue even a stupid person that I don’t like because flawed as this system is, it’s better than the alternative. IMHO at any rate.
Cindy
Road to hell paved with…
– Last Updated: Nov-20-04 1:24 PM EST –
Good post Cindy. Got me thinking. For me, I don't want social darwinism, that is equating personal responsibility with not understanding that we are interdependent and need to also help each other, from aid in the water to social policy.
The question I raise for myself and you all to ponder is how good intentions may go awry and actually contribute to the problem of increasing numbers of affluent americans heading out in leisure time activities and unconsciously reguiring others risk their lives for them. Our wish to have such no cost and readily available help may actually not be so helpful.
These kayaking risks are not present until we take ourselves there and place ourselves into them. They are elective activities of affluent people, (those who have more than needed to feed, clothe, educate, pay health costs, etc). (WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 12 million families last year, about the same as in 2002, either didn't have enough food or worried about being able to feed everyone, the government reported Friday.)
We all place priorities on the things we do and the things we agree to help others with. For me and me only, I find it difficult to pay for a person or their family or whomever if they electively head out, deliberately ignore the good advice of family, friends, fellow paddlers, require expensive labor intensive and dangerous rescue, and stick us with the bill.
As social policy goes, (no expert believe me) my puny idea is that in many societies people who live on flood plains are forced to do so by virtue of poverty and being in the lower class, not by real choice. For those folks I feel a genuine obligation to help. For those of us with real choices, who take ourselves there, I do not feel an obligation to bail them out or their families. Even so, I do feel that there should be a general safety net for all, since soooner or later we all do dumb things and need asssistance.
Personally, I just find it helpful for me to not drift into taking risks that end up obligating others to risk themselves for my totally elective sports endeavors. For me it is some small attempt to not be elitist myself, although I claim to be no better than anyone in this or anything.
Another view of the "affluent man"
There was once a time when having a human powered boat (row boat, canoe, raft, etc) was because you weren’t very affluent. Go to the marinas if you wanted to see money. Having a rowboat was almost the same as admitting you were lower class. Kind of like having a pickup truck.
Now here comes the affluent with his money taking up paddling and driving four wheel drives. With this comes his problems. He has this issue about having to be in charge and looking good. He can often be seen arguing with everyone else about how his boat is superior to everyone else’s. He is the better paddler and will prove it to you. You aren’t qualified to share the same water as he.
Man, the affluent really know how to create animosity. Can’t wait for the affluent to get bored with their toys and find something else to do. I think they already are as sea kayak sales are dropping. The poor will still be here, but left with a cesspool of legislation from his legacy.
I did say I didn’t remember all the
details,but thanks for finding the link.
I do remember that they were trying to get some good money from Carl,do you think he deserves to pay or not?
Flipside doesn’t follow
If they’re clueless about safety - they’ll be clueless about fines and fees related to safety as well.
I understand your intention - but it just cannot have the effect you assume it would. You are applying a standard simply that does not apply. See my longer post on this.
Acceptable risk
I paddle within acceptable limits of risk to me - and think about it a lot paddling alone. Doesn’t mean things can’t go wrong - but I have options to deal with most of them.
So no, I do not operate differently because there is a safety net.
its not abous skilled vs unskilled
its about reasonable prepared vs totally stupid!
As Carl Rove notes if you define the terms of the dabate it is easy to win the debate.
The folksun in NH who are making these judgements are generous. On The other hand someone trying to summit my washington now witout ise axe and crampons is being really stupid. The SAR people wnated this passed int hte first place. The high angle folksare not state or federally funded for the most part, nobody willl be ther to pay theri wives if they croak doing this. They wanted this law to be passed to deal with the jerks with labrador retrievers and cell phones sn no maps.
I am really done with this thread if you cannot understand the dimension that those who are doing the SAR and making the judgements about who shoud pay are using after reading this, te I certainly lack the patience to explain.
The measurement is not skill, it is reasonable preparation.
A beginning XC skier could need SAR on flat ground in a meadow a quarter mile near the road. Was he skilled: no, not if he fell on flat ground and broke a leg; was he resonable probably yes. so it’s not elitism its being reasnobly prepared for what you are taking on. Got it?