|
docontherock
Feb 1, 2006, 2:04 AM
Post #51 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
In reply to: In reply to: Blah Blah Blah. You want to pay more money for other people's stupidity fine. Um, yeah... everytime someone gets hurt it's a result of their own stupidity... that's sooo right! You don't do a very good job of hiding your opinion of others or of your flawed logic that "I'm not stupid so I won't get hurt". -D
1. Read all my posts before commenting jackass. 2. I'm plenty stupid and I have gotten hurt. I just don't expect other people to pay for it. 3. FOR THE LAST TIME.....THE ISSUE IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!! Whether your rescue is the result of stupidity or just bad luck, you placed yourself in the situation by entering the wilderness!!!! 4. Done with this thread as I can't take the lack of willingness to BE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE any longer. John Muir must be rolling over in his grave....
|
|
|
|
|
scrappydoo
Feb 1, 2006, 2:05 AM
Post #52 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2002
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: The real answer is EDUCATION. If someone gets rescued, don't charge them. Use it as a chance to EDUCATE them. Organize free seminars on mountain safety. Have pamphlets available at trailheads.
I didn't know safety pamphlets could be used to pay helicopter costs...
(Education is important, but it would only decrease accidents by (in my experience) maybe 5%. Everything else I've seen has either been bad judgement (which personality and experience, not education teaches), plain bad luck, or folks who- if educated- would choose to be just as reckless.)
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Feb 1, 2006, 2:09 AM
Post #53 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
In reply to: In reply to: By that logic, the fact that you are paying for the war in Iraq (which you are presumably against, but it doesn't matter) makes it okay for the government to charge you for ANYTHING they want, because there are other things that you're paying for against your will? Do you see the circular nature of this reasoning? Please tell me you do. We're branching away from the original topic, but: The FS/NPS budgets are but a fraction of a percent of the whole budget. If I were concerned about my tax dollars going to waste, I'd target where most of them were going. Interest on the growing debt and defense / the Iraq war.
We're in agreement here, that the FS/NPS Budget is minuscule compared to others. However, the topic being debated is related to those two organizations more closely than the deficit or the war in Iraq, so its a fair point. Further, I see no hope in changing public policy regarding the deficit at the moment. This does have a chance of changing something, potentially for the better. I'm glad we can all at least agree that Wayne County shouldn't be covering these costs themselves, one way or the other. The question is, who should? The state of Utah? What about out-of-staters that come to our state and use these services? It's a fine line, I'll admit. We don't charge out-of-staters for using our roads, because its assumed that we use their roads sometimes too. But when someone comes from Arkansas to Utah, perhaps they're more likely to get lost and require rescue in our state than us in their's, right? I don't know, I'm just saying, I'm not entirely sure that this should be a state thing either. I say either federally funded or individually funded, as much as I hate to usurp state's rights even further.
|
|
|
|
|
hossjulia
Feb 1, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #54 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 57
|
In reply to: Frequently, those needing to be rescued have entered the wilderness unprepared, under-trained, and unequipped. Expecting other people to potentially risk their lives to save you when you have made poor decisions is selfish. If, despite proper training, preparation, etc. something bad happens, that is a different situation. Most of the stories I hear about people needing to be rescued just make me shake my head at their stupidity. The quickest way for us to lose our right to enter the wilderness is to put the responsibility for our safety in the hands of the government. The no-load limousine riding crowd in DC would just as soon close the wilderness areas as shell out cash for rescues. Bottom line is, if you are going to enter the wilderness you need to be prepared to effect an exit on your own.
And just how do you expect to effect an exit, "On your own"if you become unambulatory? My point being that every one of us has, at some time, gone into the 'wilderness' alone. (And how is this a 'bottom line?" Dosn't compute)
Where exactly did you get your sources from, TV?
Because, where I come from, frequently, the people needing to be rescued have tons of experience, shit happens. Take the guy who went out for a walk after a thunderstorm. He stood on a big rock, probably to take in the veiw, the rock shifted, pitched him in front of it and squashed him. His body was found 2 weeks later.
Or how about 2 friends of mine who twisted and or broke their ankles while out hiking, needing an evac with a wheeled litter via the local, queit excellent SAR? Are you going to be the judge of weather or not they were qualified to be out hiking?
I was on a SAR team for 2 years, in a high risk area. I honestly can not recall a single rescue that was a complete, "Dumb Shit" scenario.
I personally think it would be a dull world if people didn't take chances.
And just how are people supposed to learn anything without taking risks?
Sure, maybe people would think twice if they had to pay for a rescue, but I doubt it. Most of the misconceptions regarding SAR is through bad TV anyway. (Dude, we can just call a helicopter with the cell phone!)
I've had many discussions regarding SAR and backcountry travel, including one today. I personally would love to die doing what I love. However, I know if I come up missing, somebody will come looking for me, weather I want them to or not. I will therefore be responsible in my travels, and do my best to come back and die at home in bed some day. I also really, really hate the thought of getting stuck out there somewhere with lets say, since it's winter, a broken binding, or a lost ski. Or a broken bone or sickness of any kind. Only way to play it safe is to stay home, and that's not an option.
Back to the topic, I think in CA the SAR funding is through the state. Our local, small county SAR gets tons of donations from past rescues. Plus some from the 'transient occupancy', or bed tax. I don't think the sheriffs have charged for a rescue, but I'm not 100% sure. We also have the Navy Longhorn rescue teams for helicopter work. Somehow, even with the war on, they are still doing heli evacs, for free!
It sounds like the county Moab is in needs to re asses their tax base.
Oh and..............
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 3:25 AM
Post #55 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: By the way, where I live we have plenty of free mountain awareness clinics. The Utah Avalanche Center holds seminars on winter travel safety and avalanche safety. Other groups hold similar things for backcountry travellers. I know the same occurs in California and Colorado. I'm not sure about other parts of the U.S. though. There are plenty of methods through which people can educate themselves before going into the mountains, just so you know. This website is one source, for climbing information. There are tons of other ones that are less full of random chit-chat, but the sources are available to anyone with a computer.
Yeah, there are plenty of resources available, but people either don't know about them or don't realize the importance of them. After all, what percent of Americans actually vote?
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 3:29 AM
Post #56 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Education is important, but it would only decrease accidents by (in my experience) maybe 5%. Everything else I've seen has either been bad judgement (which personality and experience, not education teaches), plain bad luck, or folks who- if educated- would choose to be just as reckless.)
Good point. My argument is that it's good to allow people to stick their necks out. If folks knew they'd go $25000 into debt if they had to get evacuated from the wilderness, it might deter folks from climbing mountains. Calculated risk-taking is one of the most important parts of our society/spirit. It inspires us and enriches us. Entrepreneurs and researchers are risk-takers. A dull society is one that stagnates.
The other side of education is it's not just, here's the essentials, here's how to build an anchor... it's the psychological side of things, as is covered very well by the avalanche folks. How we calculate risks. How we become complacent. How the more we know, the more risk we take.
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Feb 1, 2006, 3:43 AM
Post #57 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
In reply to: In reply to: By the way, where I live we have plenty of free mountain awareness clinics. The Utah Avalanche Center holds seminars on winter travel safety and avalanche safety. Other groups hold similar things for backcountry travellers. I know the same occurs in California and Colorado. I'm not sure about other parts of the U.S. though. There are plenty of methods through which people can educate themselves before going into the mountains, just so you know. This website is one source, for climbing information. There are tons of other ones that are less full of random chit-chat, but the sources are available to anyone with a computer. Yeah, there are plenty of resources available, but people either don't know about them or don't realize the importance of them. After all, what percent of Americans actually vote?
It's just like those people who say: If you don't vote, you can't complain. It's the same thing, but it's even more pertinent. People dismiss voting because they recognize that it probably won't make a difference. If you don't get some education from some source, I'm not sure you're deserving of rescue on the taxpayer dime.
Your examples about a society stagnating are fine, except that they don't apply to the people who need rescue who might be clueless and/or ill-prepared. The people advancing society through radical outdoor adventures aren't the ones getting lost in Moab too often. It's not the same. While I respect people who push the limits and think it is good for society, the Mark Twights, Steve Houses and others are not the ones were talking about here.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 8:24 AM
Post #58 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Your examples about a society stagnating are fine, except that they don't apply to the people who need rescue who might be clueless and/or ill-prepared. The people advancing society through radical outdoor adventures aren't the ones getting lost in Moab too often. It's not the same. While I respect people who push the limits and think it is good for society, the Mark Twights, Steve Houses and others are not the ones were talking about here.
You're starting to stereotype pretty bad, but let's ignore that. I think it's better for "inexperienced" people to see the wilderness and appreciate it (with some percentage needing assistance), because they'll see its value and want to preserve it. Otherwise they'll be just like those folks who see ANWR as a barren wasteland.
|
|
|
|
|
kellie
Feb 1, 2006, 6:14 PM
Post #59 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 125
|
In reply to: I guess I'm the only one who prefers to enjoy the wilderness without the hotels, RV's and porta-potti's.
And yet you aren't online complaining about your taxes being used to provide roads, campgrounds, showers, massive visitor centers, and guided nature walks for the RV-lovin' crowd. You're complaining about rescues, which is again a tiny part of park budget compared to all of the above.
And why do you assume it's *your* taxes paying for rescues? People being rescued are taxpayers as well. I personally would prefer they take all my taxes and use it to pluck climbers off El Cap and Mt. Rainier instead of using it to build more "amenities."
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 1, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #60 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
UPDATE
www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2006/01/30/news/c_u_and_boulder/news2.t xt
Monday, January 30, 2006 9:49 PM MST
Even though mountain rescue services can cost the Boulder County Sheriff's Office both money and personnel hours, it does not plan to start charging the injured or lost in the outdoors, a Boulder County Sheriff's Department spokesman said Monday.
“Our position in the past has been not to put someone in further risk by (their) not calling because of fear of having to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in rescue fees,” said Cmdr. Phil West, spokesman for the sheriff's office.
The statement came in the wake of the death of James Harr this past weekend.
Harr, a 25-year-old Boulder resident, died in a climbing accident in Eldorado Canyon State Park southwest of Boulder Thursday evening. Harr was finishing a day of climbing and rappelling down the “Rincon Route” - a world-renowned technical climbing route in the park - about 6:15 p.m.
*
According to West, the weather started getting colder and light was nearly gone. Harr and his partner made an error with the rope and Harr fell an estimated 20 feet. He was not wearing a helmet.
“A helmet certainly would have helped the nature of his injuries,” West said. “A lot of it would have depended on how he fell. It (a helmet) certainly wouldn't have hurt.”
Firefighters from Cherryvale Fire Protection District/Eldorado Springs station, rescuers from Rocky Mountain Rescue Group and paramedics from Pridemark Paramedic Service responded and applied emergency medical treatment to Harr.
The Boulder County Coroner's Office deduced that Harr died from “multiple blunt force injuries” and the manner of death was an “accident.”
West said he did not think Harr and his partner were being irresponsible, but quite the opposite. The two climbers noticed the change of weather and loss of light and sought to quickly wrap up their day of climbing.
“I think they were trying to use caution and unfortunately the consequences were deadly,” said West.
The number of climbers injured or killed from falls in the mountains near Boulder has been “consistent” throughout the years and improvements in equipment have helped lower accidents, according to West.
He also said a mandatory training course for climbers would be “unenforceable.”
“If there was a statistical increase in injuries or deaths it's probably related to more people participating in the sport,” said West. “A good number of people are out here on vacation, wearing just shorts and t-shirts and they get in over their heads.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Feb 1, 2006, 8:00 PM
Post #61 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Your examples about a society stagnating are fine, except that they don't apply to the people who need rescue who might be clueless and/or ill-prepared. The people advancing society through radical outdoor adventures aren't the ones getting lost in Moab too often. It's not the same. While I respect people who push the limits and think it is good for society, the Mark Twights, Steve Houses and others are not the ones were talking about here. You're starting to stereotype pretty bad, but let's ignore that. I think it's better for "inexperienced" people to see the wilderness and appreciate it (with some percentage needing assistance), because they'll see its value and want to preserve it. Otherwise they'll be just like those folks who see ANWR as a barren wasteland.
I agree that people should be encouraged to experience the wilderness. I also agree that inexperienced people should experience the wilderness. I just think they should recieve some education or training beforehand. And use their common sense. This has nothing to do with your point about society stagnating. The bottom line, for me personally, is that people should be prepared when they enter the wildnerness to take care of themselves. That's part of what we like about it, isn't it? Isn't that part of why outdoor sports and adventures are so valuable to human experience? Because they force us to be self-reliant in a society that has otherwise lost that virtue?
And kellie makes a good point. I would much prefer rescue services for climbers and other adventurers than further degradation of our national parks with further amenities.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Feb 2, 2006, 1:50 AM
Post #62 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
In reply to: In reply to: I guess I'm the only one who prefers to enjoy the wilderness without the hotels, RV's and porta-potti's. And yet you aren't online complaining about your taxes being used to provide roads, campgrounds, showers, massive visitor centers, and guided nature walks for the RV-lovin' crowd. You're complaining about rescues, which is again a tiny part of park budget compared to all of the above. And why do you assume it's *your* taxes paying for rescues? People being rescued are taxpayers as well. I personally would prefer they take all my taxes and use it to pluck climbers off El Cap and Mt. Rainier instead of using it to build more "amenities."
Actually, if you read all my posts you should be able to figure out that I AM complaining about my taxes being used for those things in addition to bailing people out of situations they are in secondary to decisions they have made. My mantra....."Take RESPONSIBILITY for your life, your health, your medical bills, your finances, your children, your pets, .... in short, yourself!!!"
All that said, since I HAVE to pay taxes, I would certainly agree with your final statement. Unfortunately we don't get to choose.... so I'd rather not heap rescue bills, however small, on top of the ridiculous tax bill I already pay.... If people keep allowing the government to decide how to spend our money and what is safe or unsafe for us to do, we will lose more and more of our rights.
|
|
|
|
|
johngo
Feb 5, 2006, 3:19 AM
Post #63 of 63
(4417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Posts: 37
|
The Mazamas, a Portland OR climbing organization, offer free rescue insurance under 6000 meters as part of the regular dues to all its members. (If you climb above 6K meters , you can buy additional inexpensive coverage.) The system is based on the American Alpine Club policy, but the Mazamas self-insure (ie, no greedy insurance companies.) Check out the details at:
http://mazamas.org/resources/insurance.php
If you're a member of a local climbing club, ask if your club offers this benefit. If they do not, you might want to ask them why! I think this is sweet benefit of membership.
B'lay On,
johnGo
|
|
|
|
|
|
