Points against are logical
Points for are emotional.
I see both sides - but when I plot out various oucomes of potetioal cases, the downside of charging is rather clear. The benefits quite questionable.
SCUBA divers
have a special insurance package called DAN that they can buy. This covers rescue, potentially airlift, and hyperbaric chamber re-compression after diving accidents.
Accidents that are usually caused by coming up too fast for nitrogen dissolved in the blood to respirate, causing “the bends” a potentiallly crippling or deadly physiological situation.
If you are only doing occasional shallow dives, less than 40 feet, you may not choose to get this insurance.
If you are diving a lot, or doing dives deeper than 60 feet, or doing long dives, it’s a really good idea.
Since health insurance will not pay for hyperbaric chambers…and the price tag can be $300,000.
Might this be akin to occasional flatwater paddles, versus whitewater cartwheels, or long, cold season paddling trips?
Val
Would It really Work?
I get the impression that the kind of person who carelessly risks life and limb as many have described here have not considered the physical risks at all, and remain blissfully ignorant as a result. If there were a large fine, I wonder if this kind of person would even know about it.
Lou
Hard to argue with that
As the Sar personell who wrote the originals have about 100 times or more my experience of hauling folks out.
Wrong again
The word got around pretty damn fast after the first person got charged for a rescue. It woke a lot of people up. You can claim whatever you want, but the truth is that it works.
It’s based on a false premise
In light of that, everything else in the article is suspect.
The first paragraph is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, at least in the US. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the government and its agencies have no obligation to any INDIVIDUAL. They are obliged to serve and protect our society as a whole, but that’s it.
I get really tired of people abusing the word “right”. If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not a legal “right” in the US.
Much of the “logic” in the article is nothing more than a huge school of “red herrrings”. “Discrimination” is a good example, as no one is talking about charging only for kayaker rescues. It refers primarily to government agencies which are taxpayer funded and charged with SAR duty. It does nothing to address private and state SAR agencies, which may not receive public funds or may be trying to cope with reduced budgets. It treats cost recovery efforts as if it were a “fee-for-rescue” service, which it absolutely is not.
It’s natural for AW to oppose rescue fees, since river paddlers (kayak and canoe) are probably far more likely to need a rescue than any other paddler group. Essentially, you’ve got a one-sided article supporting one organization’s point of view. This is not a balanced treatment of the issue.
The benefits in NH are real
You can question and postulate all you want, but that doesn’t change the facts.
I’d still suspect…
…the one’s who woke up - already were. The truly clueless shall remain so until they get a more personalized wake up call.
Believe what you want - I just see a different side of human nature than you do. A blinder side.
Go talk to members of other agencies
I’d recommend Coast Guard. See what they have to say. Obviously you’re to busy trying to be right to listen to anyone else. Maybe they can set you straight.
Your argument of whole populace vs. individuals is your weakest yet. As far as rescues go - only individuals in need matter. Services that rescue them are there for all of us. Trying to separate categories of need is and who should pay - un-American - cold hearted - elitist - and just plain inhumane.
I understand your emotional stand (really) - but cannot go from that to real world implementation being a good idea.
BTW - I have participated in SAR while in the Navy. Support role giving WX briefs, doing drift plots, etc. Was in on mission debriefs too. Usually in International waters or some other countries jurisdiction. Never a question of $. NEVER.
Look at it on a personal level. If you were on the water - and came across a clueless fool in need - would you assist? Would you demand payemnt for your time and trouble? Or would you be glad you were there in time, and pass on some advice? Now scale it up. What if your state paid you to be a Coastal Kayak Ranger and that was part of your job? What if you were crew on a GC Cutter…
Just hope you never need rescue - and some one decides paddling an Eskimo replica is reason enough to charge you… I’m not saying they’re not seaworthy - I’m a QajaqUSA member - just that others might, and it could stand up in kangaroo court.
For me it boils down to that. Keep the rescues on the water and in the woods - not in the courts! We all pay more then. That’s in nobody’s interest.
i think the laws are st up so that
the rescue of someone who did the right things, was prepared and needed rescue wasn’t charged, but the moron who clearly wasn’t prepared, didn’t have a clue and expected a “hollywood” rescue would pay for the priveldge
a scenario
This has happened to me twice, a long time ago but still.
I was paddling solo once, in a group once. Someone saw us playing in the waves and called the police/rescue. The ambulance (in case #1) came w/ police escort. I paddled over offering to help, they said I was the one called on, but it was clear I knew what I was doing, have a nice day. Case 2 very similar, we were paddling in an October snow storm, and a cop car came up along side where we were scouting a rapid. He explained, we explained, and it was have a nice day. Both these incidence cost the towns something, even tho the caller was in error. Do I get charged if this happens now? I think not but what about some of the “rescue” proposals. (which I generally favor by the way_
don’t get it
you have a million logical fact based posts, great replies. IMO iti possible you have some really good points here. I wish you would go back to not using stuff like calling someone who disagrees unamerican, inhumane, cold, etc. Please don’t respond with being defenive, like if the shoe fits, etc… how about your excellent logical arguments not the personal. I know I am new here, haven’t paid many dues but as a newbie I would appreciate it.
Expected?
That’s a stretch. First they are completely unprepared - and assume no risk. Then they “expect” a rescue? Bogus scenario.
Who needs rescue more? Who rates free lifesaving services above others? Who decides? You? Clueless Judges (about padddling)?
SAR personnel might be able to, but they want no part of a decisions like that. SERIOUS conflict of interest.
Good point
I was just replying in kind to be called “wrong again” - when it’s not about that at all, and the logic to go with that bold assertion was seriously lacking.
Maybe if I rustle feathers, he’ll go back and actually read the other posts, and accidentally absorb some of the more logical stuff.
I have little patience for self righteous types who know best for everyone else, decide who is skilled/not skilled, who should be charged, etc. They keep the lawyers a bit too well fed and the Government a bit too intrusive and powerful for my tastes.
No fee keeps it neutral - and about saving lives - PERIOD.
OK
OK, thanks, keep on keeping on
Semantics
The fact is that there are people who think that they can wander into the backcountry with impunity, under the misguided notion that if they screw up, someone will just swoop in and save them. Calls like that happen all the time; just ask someone who works in SAR. The fools are in for a rude awakening in many cases, as the SAR people are not going to take unnecessary risks in order to save them, nor should they.
Point by point
"I’d recommend Coast Guard. See what they have to say. Obviously you’re to busy trying to be right to listen to anyone else. Maybe they can set you straight."
I HAVE spoken with the Coast Guard. Their first priority is educating people in order to prevent rescues from being needed. Their second priority is performing rescues when needed. They get PAID to do so and they have no say in whether people get charged for rescues or not. Again, this is a federally funded organization paid for with tax dollars. EVERY American taxpayer pays for the cost of CG rescues.
“Your argument of whole populace vs. individuals is your weakest yet.”
It’s not an argument, it’s a legal ruling from the Supreme Court. Look it up.
“As far as rescues go - only individuals in need matter. Services that rescue them are there for all of us. Trying to separate categories of need is and who should pay - un-American - cold hearted - elitist - and just plain inhumane.”
Really? And you’re the one who claims to be logical rather than emotional? What a bunch of crap that claim is!
“I understand your emotional stand (really) - but cannot go from that to real world implementation being a good idea.”
Sorry, but I’m not going to let you pin that label on my so easily. There are logical reasons to charge for rescues under some circumstances, whether YOU can see them or not.
“BTW - I have participated in SAR while in the Navy. Support role giving WX briefs, doing drift plots, etc. Was in on mission debriefs too. Usually in International waters or some other countries jurisdiction. Never a question of $. NEVER.”
So what? That’s part of the Navy’s mission and you got PAID to do it, didn’t you? Taken in context, I would bet that SAR costs are a minuscule percentage of the Navy’s annual budget. Again, every taxpayer pays for this.
“Look at it on a personal level. If you were on the water - and came across a clueless fool in need - would you assist?”
Of course, but that’s not the same as having someone chopper out to the scene to make a rescue. It’s comparable to the example I gave earlier of rescues in patrolled waters.
“Would you demand payemnt for your time and trouble?”
I’m already there, so why would I?
"Or would you be glad you were there in time, and pass on some advice?
Of course.
“Now scale it up. What if your state paid you to be a Coastal Kayak Ranger and that was part of your job? What if you were crew on a GC Cutter…”
Nice try, but it’s not that simple. You just went from being a volunteer who happens to be on scene to being a paid member of a rescue organization. As I said before, if one is in patrolled waters and the organization simply scoops you up in the course of its daily duties, there’s no need to charge for the rescue. If they have to make extraordinary/costly efforts to rescue someone outside their patrolled area, it’s a whole 'nuther ball game.
“Just hope you never need rescue - and some one decides paddling an Eskimo replica is reason enough to charge you… I’m not saying they’re not seaworthy - I’m a QajaqUSA member - just that others might, and it could stand up in kangaroo court.”
I hope I never need a rescue, either, but if I did something monumentally stupid enough that charging for the rescue was warranted - say under NH law - I’d expect to have to pay for it. Call it “personal responsibility after the fact.” I certainly don’t apply any different standard to myself than I would to anyone else.
“For me it boils down to that. Keep the rescues on the water and in the woods - not in the courts! We all pay more then. That’s in nobody’s interest.”
It’s not a matter of courts. You’re the only one saying that. It’s a fine, just like a speeding ticket, with the exception that it occurs FAR less frequently. It would only go to court if someone chooses to contest it. Although I imagine it’s happened, if an incident is egregious enough to warrant charging for a rescue, the plaintiff has little chance of prevailing.
Logical reasons
OK, leaving emotions out of it - you say your positions are logical. Fine, I’ll keep it there. There IS some logic to your position. There are also serious holes in it making it incomplete. When you take it full cirle, there are very negative consequences you simply cannot avoid.
So, if for the sake of argument I agree with you that SOME circumstances are clearly bogus rescues (pretty easy to do - some ARE bogus)- and that these tie up or jeopardize resources unnecessarily - we can limit the discussion to just those theoretical types of cases you are in favor of charging people for.
It still leaves two problems:
- The rescue services - as you repeatedly pointed out in your point by point reply to my last - ARE ALREADY PAID!!! The CG, Navy, and smaller local services are not in the business of billing, or prosecuting for payment in court. Huge new burden to put on them.
- Who decides what rescues meet the criteria? This has been a large part of the discussions up to this point. The rescue services must not be put in this position. Yes, they may be the logical ones to make this call (in fact, maybe the only ones qualified to do so) - but have them decide who pays and who doesn’t pay sets up a huge conflict of interest and opens them up to a myriad of potential legal challenges on every facet of their operations. Having them decide who gets charged effectively removes what legal protection they now have to operate on our behalf.
If the rescue services don’t decide who will or will not be charged (I doubt they want any part of it), who will? Having another agency or office handle that may let the rescue forces continue to operate as they do now, but it will only add a different layer for the lawyers to attack. The courts are still where these end up.
So you see Brian, these ARE legal issues. They are issues I would hate to see our rescue forces tied up with. We already pay them - and if they now end up in court over charging for rescues, we will all pay a LOT more.
No matter how it plays out - we will ALL pay a lot more. In higher taxes, potentially less effective rescue services, more bureaucracy, and more negative attention to outdoor pursuits in general (that is NOT a good thing for the paddling community). Big downward spiral. How can you not hear the sucking sound?