|
leapinlizard
Jul 17, 2009, 5:43 AM
Post #26 of 61
(3115 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Posts: 200
|
Let's just ban everything that's dangerous or causes death.
- French Fries
- Climbing
- Breathing (these days)
- Driving
- Sleeping in a bed ( cause god knows what might happen if you fall out)
|
|
|
|
|
celticelement
Jul 17, 2009, 6:00 AM
Post #27 of 61
(3103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 205
|
All I am saying is that if people expect to be taken care of, they can also expect to be regulated.
Authority goes hand in hand with responsibility.
Until we can make the decision that it is ok if people die from x, we will always have the people who have to figure out how to keep people from dieing while doing x, asking people not to do x.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 17, 2009, 6:18 AM
Post #28 of 61
(3095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
leapinlizard wrote: Let's just ban everything that's dangerous or causes death. - French Fries
|
|
|
|
|
leapinlizard
Jul 17, 2009, 9:31 AM
Post #29 of 61
(3081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Posts: 200
|
But Trans Fats were only a small part of why fries are bad for you.
Although I am glad that most restaurants have switched from using them.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 17, 2009, 1:44 PM
Post #30 of 61
(3051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
tarsier wrote: (The mandatory health insurance won't really help though.)
Only in the sense that since we all paid in, including the victim, the cost of recovery won't be on the taxpayers per se. As long as it falls to me to pay for some of those medical bills, I have the right to express what I think is allowable risk. Its that simple. My parents did the same thing to me, and now that I'm paying for my own insurance, I can adjust my habits accordingly.
If somebody else is footing the bill, you must keep your benefactor happy.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 17, 2009, 1:54 PM
Post #31 of 61
(3048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
pfwein wrote: dingus wrote: clc wrote: I wonder why we (Canada and USA) are so against BASE jumping when Europe and probably most of the world don't care. I think we are retarded in many of these issues. How are the laws so different in Europe. If Chris bounces off a rock half way down, that's his own fault and he knows it. For the same reason rc.com is obsessed with safety. DMT That's a theory that may well be right, but my own pet theory is that our government is controlled by law enforcement officer types who are obsessed with controlling the behavior of the citizens, not so much with ensuring safety per se (for example, we embrace things like high school football, which lead to plenty of paralyzing and other major injuries). Climbers, base jumpers, and other "extreme" sports challenge governmental control and get extra scrutiny. But you are sort of right about safety obsession at least as it relates to me--I fully support base jumpers' rights in some instances, but I'm concerned about people who may be unwittingly below a landing area and who could get crunched if the jump goes haywire.
Well to point the finger of blame at a specific thing?
Its the American sense of SAR Entitlement. We merkins expect to be rescued whenever we get into trouble. Whip out the cell and call for the Big Boys to chopper in a Binky, I dropped mine.
But don't you DARE send me a fucking bill.
At the end of the day? Those who PAY THE BILLS get to decide the rules. Or most days.
Take the SAR Entitlement away. Tell the world - We American climbers DO take full responsibility. We DON'T depend on Mommy Government to protect us from ourselves and to save us when we are stupid or rash.
The park service has every right and evena duty, to the American taxpayer, to regulate activities they know (they KNOW) will result in SAR expenditures.
Werner pointed out over on the (goddamnit) taco thread that YOSAR spent a lot of time looking for jumpers who had 'disappeared into the bush.' Folks landing all over the place, etc.
He cited that on the other hand there have been only 5 or 6 hang glider incidents of any kind, in a couple of decades.
Cut it anyway you like - these restrictions have been earned. Base jumpers auger in with routine reularity, so SAR can expect to be picking up the pieces over and over. And we climbers EXPECT to be rescued for free.
So we should get off the 'responbsibility' train - we climbers haven't purchased the ticket yet.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Jul 17, 2009, 1:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 17, 2009, 1:56 PM
Post #32 of 61
(3039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
celticelement wrote: All I am saying is that if people expect to be taken care of, they can also expect to be regulated. Authority goes hand in hand with responsibility. Until we can make the decision that it is ok if people die from x, we will always have the people who have to figure out how to keep people from dieing while doing x, asking people not to do x.
Absolutely right and I see you beat me to the punch.
Of course, I concur.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Jul 17, 2009, 3:04 PM
Post #33 of 61
(3014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
I concur with that concurage too.
Total bullshit that this is illegal or that the Gov't is doing rescues. TOTAL!!!
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 17, 2009, 3:20 PM
Post #34 of 61
(3005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
billcoe_ wrote: I concur with that concurage too. Total bullshit that this is illegal or that the Gov't is doing rescues. TOTAL!!!
Fourthed?
|
|
|
|
|
crackmeup
Jul 17, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #35 of 61
(2988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 146
|
tarsier wrote: which raises the point that it's hard to have freedom without capitalism. Charge for rescues. Let people take their own chances and Darwinian principles of evolution and the free market will sort things out.
Capitalism, like any economic or political system, trades some freedoms for others. When there are rules there are tradeoffs in terms of what you are free to do.
If you want this sort of freedom simply go to a remote place where there won't be anyone to enforce the rules. Even in a nanny state there are lots of rules that you can get away with breaking, just because it's impossible to enforce them all.
If you do something illegal with high chances of calling the attention of the authorities in a touristy place, deal with the consequences. In this case, a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Jul 17, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #36 of 61
(2988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
I concur as well, but it's worth noting that Eurpoe is the land of constant helicopter rescues, at least from my perceptions from reading and my two climbing vacations there (not that that makes me an expert).
They've got more helos buzzing around the mountains than you would ever see in the US, doing things like ferrying gourmet food/wine/beer to mountain hotels (refugios) as well as rescuing people.
So I don't think the cost/responsibility of rescue really distinguishes Europe from the US. That may be part of the explanation, but not the total picture. I think the US government (which does reflect the will of the people, in the aggregate) is more bent on controlling behavior than are European governments. Probably comes from our Puritan past or something.
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Jul 17, 2009, 4:06 PM
Post #37 of 61
(2986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
petsfed wrote: leapinlizard wrote: Yeah I remember watching that jump in the video, I had wondered if they had gotten the permit for it. Laws prohibiting base jumping are lame. Same as seat belt laws. If I want to drive without a seat belt that should be my business and mine alone, same goes for base jumping. Until these things start effecting other bystanders there should be no reason to outlaw. Until we have a) mandatory health insurance, b) allow hospitals the option to turn away people who can't pay, or c) disallow litigation by the families of those killed by dangerous activities that they knowingly participated in, we'll continue to make certain dangerous practices illegal. Unless you're stoked on paying the medical bills of every dumbshit who is deterred by the law (but not the risk) and can't afford health insurance. Besides, BASE jumping isn't illegal everywhere, just in National Parks.
The idea that there are likely to be healthcare costs associated with a basejumping accident, paid by the jumper, the tax payers, or anyone else, is hilarious.
Now your argument about our overly litigious society holds more water, but the first stop for a base jumping accident victim ain't real likely to be the local ER, you know what I mean?
Anyway, I'm sure Chris knew the rules of the game when he chose to play. It's a bumber that he got busted, and I happen to disagree with the law in this case, but he knew what was up and jumped all the same.
(This post was edited by cfnubbler on Jul 17, 2009, 4:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
zchandran
Jul 17, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #38 of 61
(2979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 120
|
dingus wrote: Well to point the finger of blame at a specific thing? Its the American sense of SAR Entitlement. We merkins expect to be rescued whenever we get into trouble. Whip out the cell and call for the Big Boys to chopper in a Binky, I dropped mine. But don't you DARE send me a fucking bill. At the end of the day? Those who PAY THE BILLS get to decide the rules. Or most days. Take the SAR Entitlement away. Tell the world - We American climbers DO take full responsibility. We DON'T depend on Mommy Government to protect us from ourselves and to save us when we are stupid or rash. The park service has every right and evena duty, to the American taxpayer, to regulate activities they know (they KNOW) will result in SAR expenditures. Werner pointed out over on the (goddamnit) taco thread that YOSAR spent a lot of time looking for jumpers who had 'disappeared into the bush.' Folks landing all over the place, etc. He cited that on the other hand there have been only 5 or 6 hang glider incidents of any kind, in a couple of decades. Cut it anyway you like - these restrictions have been earned. Base jumpers auger in with routine reularity, so SAR can expect to be picking up the pieces over and over. And we climbers EXPECT to be rescued for free. So we should get off the 'responbsibility' train - we climbers haven't purchased the ticket yet.
It's quite easy to work those costs into the budget though. Yosemite backcountry passes cost so much per day - and hopefully that covers their SAR costs for lost backpackers.
Give climbers and BASE jumpers the option of purchasing rescue coverage at a per diem rate before going out. Have a $1000 deductible to cut down on "I forgot my sunblock" rescue calls. If you choose to go out without coverage and need rescue, you pay the whole bill. If you can't, you get banned from all national parks until you do. Adjust the numbers so that the system is fiscally self-sustaining and voila - no more complaints from legitimately annoyed tax payers about why a quarter million is being spent on retrieving people from Mt Hood in winter.
The standard objection to charging for rescue is that it will dissuade some from making the call early enough, and thus make the whole operation much more complicated and dangerous. A fee based model can alleviate that concern.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 17, 2009, 5:05 PM
Post #39 of 61
(2951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
pfwein wrote: I concur as well, but it's worth noting that Eurpoe is the land of constant helicopter rescues, at least from my perceptions from reading and my two climbing vacations there (not that that makes me an expert). They've got more helos buzzing around the mountains than you would ever see in the US, doing things like ferrying gourmet food/wine/beer to mountain hotels (refugios) as well as rescuing people. So I don't think the cost/responsibility of rescue really distinguishes Europe from the US. That may be part of the explanation, but not the total picture. I think the US government (which does reflect the will of the people, in the aggregate) is more bent on controlling behavior than are European governments. Probably comes from our Puritan past or something.
My understanding is that in Europe it is common that the governments do not fund the rescues but rather the rescuees pay. Most have insurance?
But yeah we do have this momma government attitude here for sure.,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 17, 2009, 5:10 PM
Post #40 of 61
(2945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I think the whol eexpectation of a rescue of any kind is misplaced and the true source of this problem.
We don't have the courage to say 'fuck them' to some dumb assed people who do some dumb assed thing, like for example...
base jumping off the Captain, landing in the Merced and DROWNING.
Or heading into the back country with a T shirt and shorts in the face of an advancing October storm.
No we have to be compassionate and give rescue a try.
And I get that - it IS compassion that fuels the urge.
But the bottom line is the expectation of a rescue leads to a sense of entitlement and this leads to the government granting and controlling that entitlement.
Simple as that. Base jumping isn't coming back to Yosemite, not after that woman got done showing the world how safe it was.
That had to set the legality of the sport back... permanently.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 17, 2009, 5:24 PM
Post #41 of 61
(2938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
All requiring rescue insurance would cause is an economic stratification of climbers in national parks. I'm pretty critical of dirtbags but there's a huge difference between a few bucks for a campsite and a couple of hundred bucks for insurance.
The price of insurance is based on the relative rarity of needing it. SAR calls in National Parks are relatively common, so the price will not be low.
Of course, the upshot would be that Nutcracker would always be packed with people with brand new racks, while the people actually capable of climbing, say, Tales of Power are either too busy guiding the rich on Nutcracker, or can't afford the insurance premiums. FUCK THAT.
Re: cfnubbler, you're right, first responders on a BASE call are well advised to pack a spatula. However, the justification for limiting all dangerous and semi-dangerous activity is that even a few uninsured survivors drive up the cost to the taxpayer considerably. Plus, you can sue a landowner in the states if one of your loved ones gets themselves killed on private property, even if that loved one was trespassing. The only reason there hasn't been successful litigation after a Darwin-award style death in a national park is because the ones who take personal responsibility are the only ones getting killed.
Thing is, Europeans have chopper rescues all the time. The reason, I would imagine, is the much higher taxation rate. When everybody pays in with the same expectations, nobody feels robbed when somebody actually uses the service they all paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 17, 2009, 5:36 PM
Post #42 of 61
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I'm talking in the dark here, maybe some research is in order. However, with the number of dirtbag alpinists in France, either so many people get rescue insurance that it keeps the cost down, or there's some other source of revenue. Major donations from climbing companies perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Jul 17, 2009, 5:45 PM
Post #43 of 61
(2923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
I know that the North Shore SAR in Vancouver is against charging for rescue through insurance or other means. They would rather go out on frivolous rescues than have people afraid to ask for help or even evade rescue because they don't think they can afford it. I'm not sure of their funding scheme but a decent part of it comes from charitable donations.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 17, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #44 of 61
(2914 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
hafilax wrote: ... or even evade rescue because ...
How do you evade a rescue?!?
Makes me think of Monte Python, Holy Grail, Castle Anthrax:
Sir Lancelot: We were in the nick of time. You were in great peril.
Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.
Sir Lancelot: Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Sir Lancelot: No, it's too perilous.
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
Sir Lancelot: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on.
Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?
Sir Lancelot: No. It's unhealthy.
Sir Galahad: I bet you're gay.
Sir Lancelot: Am not.
|
|
|
|
|
areyoumydude
Jul 17, 2009, 6:24 PM
Post #45 of 61
(2887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
dingus wrote: We don't have the courage to say 'fuck them' to some dumb assed people who do some dumb assed thing, like for example... base jumping off the Captain, landing in the Merced and DROWNING.
Or BASE jumping off of El Cap, landing in the meadow, and being chased into the Merced by rangers and drowning.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 17, 2009, 6:26 PM
Post #46 of 61
(2884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
dingus wrote: My understanding is that in Europe it is common that the governments do not fund the rescues but rather the rescuees pay. Most have insurance? But yeah we do have this momma government attitude here for sure., DMT
When you think about, that's the complete opposite of the perception for everything else European vs. American. I'm not sure we are the momma govt here (or that we want it to be that way necessarily).
I think the only thing different between Euros and Americans with regard to rescues is that they fund them and we don't (or they fund them more than we do). I don't think that it's an entitlement attitude here so much as we as a whole society don't put as much emphasis on these types of things as Europeans do.
Maybe I'm muddling my words a bit here, so I'll try to be clearer: sports such as climbing, skiing, etc. are more common in Europe than they are in the U.S.. These sports, while they are mainstream to a degree here in the U.S., are much more on the fringe of society than they are in Europe. We have no problem having an ambulance at a football game because football is a major part of our cutlure. Most kids play football, baseball, soccer, or basketball of some sort growing up, so it makes sense for society as a whole to fund "rescue" operations for these events. We are very efficient at providing emergent care for activities that our population participates in large numbers. No one blinks an eye at the ambulance rushing to the men's softball game where a 40-year old blew out his knee sliding into second base. This is because softball is a common activity and we've found ways of making it accessible.
In Europe, climbing and skiing are more culturally accepted than they are here, so the outrage of funding such things is considerably less (because more people find the activity normal / acceptable).
Two other factors: 1) geographic size makes rescue operations more efficient in smaller countries and; 2) the existence of sport clubs (i.e. - social groups that don't really exist here in the U.S. outside of schools) makes for a very large funding / lobbying opportunity that does not exist here.
Factor all of this in, and you have geography and demography that make such operations considerably more feasible in Europe than in the U.S.. That is why it exists there and not here.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jul 17, 2009, 6:36 PM
Post #47 of 61
(2877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
dingus wrote: pfwein wrote: I concur as well, but it's worth noting that Eurpoe is the land of constant helicopter rescues, at least from my perceptions from reading and my two climbing vacations there (not that that makes me an expert). They've got more helos buzzing around the mountains than you would ever see in the US, doing things like ferrying gourmet food/wine/beer to mountain hotels (refugios) as well as rescuing people. So I don't think the cost/responsibility of rescue really distinguishes Europe from the US. That may be part of the explanation, but not the total picture. I think the US government (which does reflect the will of the people, in the aggregate) is more bent on controlling behavior than are European governments. Probably comes from our Puritan past or something. My understanding is that in Europe it is common that the governments do not fund the rescues but rather the rescuees pay. Most have insurance? But yeah we do have this momma government attitude here for sure.,
Yeah, the cultural context is entirely different. It isn't entirely about who pays. If it were, then you'd have to buy rescue insurance to hike in the Grand Canyon or swim in Yosemite since folks regularly need rescues for those activities, as well.
In Europe, most of the climbing clubs are actually functional-- i.e., have their own gyms, huts, healthy demographics--and include rescue insurance. We don't have a tradition of functional climbing clubs in the U.S., so the single-most efficient means of distributing rescue insurance is not available to us.
But I can't imagine that rescue insurance pays for even a significant piece of costs in the Alps. The government there subsidizes alpine rescue partly because it is typically coordinated with military and local leo personnel and training programs, and partly because the alps produce tourism revenue for both local and national governments.
Mountain climbing is just normal in Europe in ways that it isn't here. The general educated, tax-paying population accepts it as a sport and even as a profession.
Here, it's a freak show. Here, unlike swimming or hunting or canoeing or even skiing, climbing is extreme. And of course, related activities like parapente, basejumping, etc. are even more marginal.
And yes, the NPS hates unstructured activity.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 17, 2009, 7:01 PM
Post #48 of 61
(2863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
k.l.k wrote: And yes, the NPS hates unstructured activity.
I am nothing if not unstructured activity. No wonder they stare at me so hard when I go through the gate.
I knew a guy who was ticketed in Yosemite for 'aimless wandering.'
Seriously. They conducted him to the boundaries of the park and asked him to not come back, lol.
Aimless wandering. Who knew???
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
welle
Jul 17, 2009, 7:16 PM
Post #49 of 61
(2851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 212
|
pfwein wrote: I concur as well, but it's worth noting that Eurpoe is the land of constant helicopter rescues, at least from my perceptions from reading and my two climbing vacations there (not that that makes me an expert). They've got more helos buzzing around the mountains than you would ever see in the US, doing things like ferrying gourmet food/wine/beer to mountain hotels (refugios) as well as rescuing people. So I don't think the cost/responsibility of rescue really distinguishes Europe from the US. That may be part of the explanation, but not the total picture. I think the US government (which does reflect the will of the people, in the aggregate) is more bent on controlling behavior than are European governments. Probably comes from our Puritan past or something.
First of all, Euros tax hell out of their citizens, which explains their generally socialist approach to healthcare, education and other social aspects.
Secondly, Americans have more purist appreciation to their backwoods and find constant helicopter buzz unwelcome, that’s why most backcountry supplies are ferried by mules or humans. I remember when we were hiking in Tetons, every time a chopper or an F-16 flew, people would curse Dick Chenney…
Thirdly, as someone pointed out the sheer geographic vastness of the US makes government SAR cost-prohibitive. Grand Canyon NP itself is larger than many if not most European Countries.
BTW, Grand Canyon NP does charge $3000 everyone who needs a helicopter evac. The Park service already has their hands full with dumb hikers who hike down the Bright Angel and Keibab trails with a bottle of Poland spring and wearing flip-flops in a day. They also serve as the only law enforcement agency for the entire park territory and also neighboring reservations.
Also, the decisions are made park to park basis, and not the Federal government as a whole, I think. The GCNP is unique in the way that it’s a still a living and/or sacred ground for many Native American people. The Park Service probably has an MOU in place with the tribes on what kind of activities are permitted within the park…
|
|
|
|
|
Factor2
Jul 17, 2009, 7:30 PM
Post #50 of 61
(2837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Posts: 188
|
dingus wrote: I knew a guy who was ticketed in Yosemite for 'aimless wandering.' Aimless wandering. Who knew??? DMT
you did 
|
|
|
|
|
|
