The estimated average cost for a search and rescue is less than $10,000. San Bernardino County residents needing assistance aren’t charged. Other counties are charged if their residents must be rescued, said Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Jodi Miller.
Define extreme vs. non-extreme.Gene wrote: ↑Wow, a step in the right direction, though the bill should go the folks that made the decision to get themselves in a position to be rescued. Not so much for true accidents, floods disasters etc., if you want to play stupid games you should also be willing to pay for the cost.
Personally, I do not think public money, i.e., taxpayer dollars, should be used to underwrite things like extreme mountain biking, extreme dirt biking/ORV, bungee jumping, base jumping, extreme skiing etc.
Good point, all of them until some sort of standard can be set. Just watch the sport of extreme skiing, essentially jumping off a now covered cliff. You want to do that, be my guest, just don't ask for public money to pay for your rescue and the treatment of your injuries.whatmeworry wrote: ↑Define extreme vs. non-extreme.Gene wrote: ↑Wow, a step in the right direction, though the bill should go the folks that made the decision to get themselves in a position to be rescued. Not so much for true accidents, floods disasters etc., if you want to play stupid games you should also be willing to pay for the cost.
Personally, I do not think public money, i.e., taxpayer dollars, should be used to underwrite things like extreme mountain biking, extreme dirt biking/ORV, bungee jumping, base jumping, extreme skiing etc.
"Extreme" is partly relative to skill level. For the giggling girls who recently got pulled out of Las Flores, following a trail was apparently an extreme challenge. I think our taxes should go toward saving lives in the mountains. But maybe there is a threshold of recklessness at which point people are fined for a misdemeanor. This could be for small things like not carrying enough water and food on the Skyline Trail in summertime. Or bigger things like climbing up a cliff that you can't climb down.
I agree completely, but I think it generally isn't done more because of logistics than politics. Unless you charge everyone, even legitimate victims, you have to define who will be charged and under what circumstances. That means that you have to spend money investigating the incident, and perhaps going to court to prove the outcome of the investigation should a person refuse to pay. Those costs could easily exceed the cost of the rescue very quickly.Sean wrote: ↑ "Extreme" is partly relative to skill level. For the giggling girls who recently got pulled out of Las Flores, following a trail was apparently an extreme challenge. I think our taxes should go toward saving lives in the mountains. But maybe there is a threshold of recklessness at which point people are fined for a misdemeanor. This could be for small things like not carrying enough water and food on the Skyline Trail in summertime. Or bigger things like climbing up a cliff that you can't climb down.
That's a valid observation, but how many rescues do you see because of extreme skiing and similar activity? From what I see, the vast majority of rescues involve regular folks engaged in what I would not characterize as pretty ordinary activity. Dumb sometimes, but not extreme.
It's a matter of personal responsibility. We most certainly do charge folks for making bad decisions on the road, the CHP issues citations and your actions could be examined in a courtroom. I'm not advocating hikers police, but at some point personal responsibility must come into play. To give it another face, when a camper builds an open fire that burns thousands of acres do they get an, "Oh well." for bad judgement?Uncle Rico wrote: ↑That's a valid observation, but how many rescues do you see because of extreme skiing and similar activity? From what I see, the vast majority of rescues involve regular folks engaged in what I would not characterize as pretty ordinary activity. Dumb sometimes, but not extreme.
Search and rescue exists for a reason just like the Highway Patrol. I don't believe we charge folks for making dumb decisions on the road that warrants intervention by the CHP (yet), and we shouldn't do it with Search and Rescue. Folks shouldn't have to choose between dying/becoming seriously injured or paying a huge bill they can't afford simply because they perhaps make an error in judgment, or don't make an error in judgment but find themselves in a predicament (e.g., Ellen's recent "adventure"). That's just bad policy in my view.
In terms of cost to the taxpayer, there's a lot of places our tax dollars go that perhaps we don't like, but it's like my mom used to say to me as kid: it's what you do as a contributing member of society.
I might give you that, but what is that point? And who is going to be the arbiter of what is stupid, what is not stupid but reckless, what is not reckless but simply negligent, what is risky but not necessarily negligent, and what is none of the above? Is the test going to be if you need rescue then you were stupid regardless of circumstances? You can conjure up all sorts of examples. What about the middle-aged guy who after too many years of eating burgers and drinking beer takes up hiking, decides to try the Ski Hut trail, has a heart attack on the way up, and has to be rescued? He's not engaging in any sort of activity that most people would call "extreme," but what about stupidity? Should he be charged because he maybe exhibited poor judgment in tackling a hike that was a bit beyond his fitness capabilities? I personally don't think so, but some would call him "stupid."There has to be a point of intolerance for public funding of stupidity.
Well that's really the difference ain't it? Someone's bad decisions are adjudicated in a courtroom before they are penalized. In other words, there's some established process in place where some neutral third party looks at all the facts and circumstances and determines that the person made a bad decision before a penalty is imposed. Maybe that happens with the cost of a rescue (I candidly don't know), but it sounds to me like the decision about whether to charge or not charge someone is made by "someone" on a more ad hoc basis.We most certainly do charge folks for making bad decisions on the road, the CHP issues citations and your actions could be examined in a courtroom.
I'm sure an objective law could be formulated to define what is reckless versus accidental. There are already laws like this for other activities like driving. I believe it's the moral way to deal with such problems that don't involve actual felonies, yet incur a cost on society in general. People know that if they drive recklessly on the roads, they might be ticketed and fined. They still drive recklessly. But at least they are compelled to pay for their poor behavior in a way that potentially will teach them a lesson. Plus, society can track the reckless drivers and increase the level of punishment with each subsequent infraction, if need be. A similar system could be set up for reckless hikers.SGBob wrote: ↑I agree completely, but I think it generally isn't done more because of logistics than politics. Unless you charge everyone, even legitimate victims, you have to define who will be charged and under what circumstances. That means that you have to spend money investigating the incident, and perhaps going to court to prove the outcome of the investigation should a person refuse to pay. Those costs could easily exceed the cost of the rescue very quickly.
The ban of off-trail . Only nanny state activities approved, per the outdoor tourism lobby. If there is any possibility of being hurt that can be imagined, that means you will be hurt and its legally a reckless mentally ill activity.If the outdoor companies cant explain it and sell it in 15 seconds , its still a bit taboo and racist,etc.
That pretty much gets to the central issue. Is it a handout if you already paid for it? The problem is that once the government takes your tax money, it's not really your money anymore. So someone else decides what you have paid for. I'd like to think that emergency life-saving services would take priority, but clearly that's not the case if we're charging for mountain rescues. Priority seems to reside in socializing entire industries like education and health care.bcrowell wrote:Sean, you seem to have invented a new flavor: someone who doesn't want a government handout, especially because he suspects that he already paid for it.
I was trying to make a joke, but humor doesn't always come across clearly on the internet. Actually I think this thread has been surprisingly civil and rational.Sean wrote: Also, I recognize that not all socialists are Nazis. So unless you're promoting a white supremacists brand of socialism, I'm not going to call you a Nazi. I simply believe this particular issue boils down to your moral view of taxation.
