|
dingus
Jun 2, 2009, 9:34 PM
Post #26 of 43
(995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
shoo wrote: What ever happened to "Live free or die?"
Same thing that happened to FREE AVIATION FUEL....
its a fantasy.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 2, 2009, 9:35 PM
Post #27 of 43
(995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
shoo wrote: What ever happened to "Live free or die?"
"Live Free AND Die" would be the more appropriate NH climber's tag line?
Living Free doesn't inlude a reacue on the tax payer time.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 2, 2009, 9:37 PM
Post #28 of 43
(994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
multiades wrote: edge wrote: shoo wrote: What ever happened to "Live free or die?" It's a cool motto, but once we were made to wear seat belts, then all bets were off. We also have the Old Man of the Mountain on our license plates, but even he left in disgust. You can thank the "click it or ticket" program for that. It's a federal program, and all states have to participate to get certain funds, AFAIK. What a load of crap.
Actually it demonstrates quite nicely just how cheaply NHers are willing to sell that freedom - for a Few Earmarks More.
Ph well, I never believed that live free or die crap anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dumbsocrates
Jun 2, 2009, 11:48 PM
Post #29 of 43
(959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 100
|
rtwilli4 wrote: Colorado doesn't pay for rescue of back country skiers.
Hmm... I did not know that. But I do know that with a hiker or hunter permit in CO you pay a nominal amount for search & rescue insurance. That covers your ass in case you get lost or f&%@ed up climbing, for example, the diamond on Longs.
(This post was edited by dumbsocrates on Jun 2, 2009, 11:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rtwilli4
Jun 2, 2009, 11:58 PM
Post #30 of 43
(951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867
|
dumbsocrates wrote: rtwilli4 wrote: Colorado doesn't pay for rescue of back country skiers. Hmm... I did not know that. But I do know that with a hiker or hunter permit in CO you pay a nominal amount for search & rescue insurance. That covers your ass in case you get lost or f&%@ed up climbing, for example, the diamond on Longs.
I don't have first hand experience, but when I used to live in Steamboat Springs, all the signs said that if you leave the area to ski the national forest, that "rescue, if available, would be "slow and costly."
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Jun 3, 2009, 12:12 AM
Post #31 of 43
(944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
rtwilli4 wrote: dumbsocrates wrote: rtwilli4 wrote: Colorado doesn't pay for rescue of back country skiers. Hmm... I did not know that. But I do know that with a hiker or hunter permit in CO you pay a nominal amount for search & rescue insurance. That covers your ass in case you get lost or f&%@ed up climbing, for example, the diamond on Longs. I don't have first hand experience, but when I used to live in Steamboat Springs, all the signs said that if you leave the area to ski the national forest, that "rescue, if available, would be "slow and costly."
This is just another reason people should join the AAC....rescue insurance.
That is, it's insured assuming you call global rescue immediately after you call 911.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Jun 3, 2009, 12:21 AM
Post #32 of 43
(939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
rtwilli4 wrote: dumbsocrates wrote: rtwilli4 wrote: Colorado doesn't pay for rescue of back country skiers. Hmm... I did not know that. But I do know that with a hiker or hunter permit in CO you pay a nominal amount for search & rescue insurance. That covers your ass in case you get lost or f&%@ed up climbing, for example, the diamond on Longs. I don't have first hand experience, but when I used to live in Steamboat Springs, all the signs said that if you leave the area to ski the national forest, that "rescue, if available, would be "slow and costly."
To be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean you (the rescued) are paying for it. It would be a useful "scare tactic" by the mountain, as well as not being totally misleading, to say rescues will be costly, even if that cost is eaten by the state.
It could have just been a wiley way to keep people from being stupid- people are more afraid of hurting their pocket book than they are of doing stupid things that may "incur a rescue".....
than again, it could mean exactly what it sounds like it means....you never know
|
|
|
|
|
rtwilli4
Jun 3, 2009, 1:39 AM
Post #33 of 43
(921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867
|
altelis wrote: rtwilli4 wrote: dumbsocrates wrote: rtwilli4 wrote: Colorado doesn't pay for rescue of back country skiers. Hmm... I did not know that. But I do know that with a hiker or hunter permit in CO you pay a nominal amount for search & rescue insurance. That covers your ass in case you get lost or f&%@ed up climbing, for example, the diamond on Longs. I don't have first hand experience, but when I used to live in Steamboat Springs, all the signs said that if you leave the area to ski the national forest, that "rescue, if available, would be "slow and costly." To be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean you (the rescued) are paying for it. It would be a useful "scare tactic" by the mountain, as well as not being totally misleading, to say rescues will be costly, even if that cost is eaten by the state. It could have just been a wiley way to keep people from being stupid- people are more afraid of hurting their pocket book than they are of doing stupid things that may "incur a rescue"..... than again, it could mean exactly what it sounds like it means....you never know
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a ski resort do that but I think these signs were legit.
Here is a pic:
It's been a few years but I remember that the law changed in some way while I was living there. Most of the good riding around Steamboat is back country so it was a big deal. I believe that the law that passed while I was there put the liability of the party being rescued.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Jun 3, 2009, 3:02 AM
Post #34 of 43
(898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
I don't think there is a simple answer to the question of "must the rescuee pay to be rescued" in Colorado because that may depend upon the organization that does the rescuing.
The group that I most familiar with, Rocky Mountain Rescue Group, which handles many/most rescues in Boulder Country, does not charge rescuees under any circumstances (disclaimer: I am not a member of RMRG, and the above is my understanding, but anyone should check with RMRG to verify my understanding if they really want to be 100% sure).
Other rescue entities may have different policies.
The legal enforceability of an invoice sent by a rescue agency to a rescuee raises interesting issues and I don't know how they would be resolved. If anyone tells you they do know, please ask for a citation to any legal authority and post the response to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Jun 3, 2009, 3:15 AM
Post #35 of 43
(895 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
pfwein wrote: The legal enforceability of an invoice sent by a rescue agency to a rescuee raises interesting issues and I don't know how they would be resolved.
Good point.
Here's what happens in oregon/mt hood.
There was a big debate about this a couple years back because of an extremely costly rescue....basically some fools from texas decided to attempt a technical route despite the fact that a large storm cell was moving in. It became one of the most costly rescues in the history of Mt hood, in more ways than just monetary. The taxpayers had to foot the bill, and if I remember right, rescuers died.
Here's a short interview concerning that incident. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/...d-steve-rollins.html I wish I could have found a better article about it, it was a heated debate up there for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
dumbsocrates
Jun 3, 2009, 11:48 AM
Post #36 of 43
(868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 100
|
pfwein wrote: I don't think there is a simple answer to the question of "must the rescuee pay to be rescued" in Colorado because that may depend upon the organization that does the rescuing. The group that I most familiar with, Rocky Mountain Rescue Group, which handles many/most rescues in Boulder Country, does not charge rescuees under any circumstances (disclaimer: I am not a member of RMRG, and the above is my understanding, but anyone should check with RMRG to verify my understanding if they really want to be 100% sure). Other rescue entities may have different policies. The legal enforceability of an invoice sent by a rescue agency to a rescuee raises interesting issues and I don't know how they would be resolved. If anyone tells you they do know, please ask for a citation to any legal authority and post the response to this thread.
I guess I should have said, "insurance." Here's CO on the CORSAR Card:
Why Buy a CORSAR Card?
Colorado residents and visitors are well served by dedicated volunteer search and rescue teams, but mission costs are often in the thousands of dollars. By purchasing a CORSAR card you are contributing to the Search and Rescue Fund, which will reimburse these teams for costs incurred in your search and rescue. Funds remaining at the end of the year are used to help pay for training and equipment for these teams. Anyone with a current hunting/fishing license, or boat, snowmobile, ATV registration is already covered by the fund.
The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance
The card is not insurance and does not reimburse individuals nor does it pay for medical transport. Medical transport includes helicopter flights or ground ambulance. If aircraft are used as a search vehicle, those costs are reimbursed by the fund. If the aircraft becomes a medical transport due to a medical emergency, the medical portion of the transport is not covered.
Source: Department of Local Affairs
The legal jargon of the statute: CSRB - Colorado SAR Fund Statute .... and yes, back country skiers are also covered under this article. So the signs, scare tactics? Partly, yes. They are not lying: SAR missions ARE slow and costly, but who incurs the cost the signs do not specify. The fund was only established in 2001.
Sorry for hijacking the thread :) So about New Hampshire....
(This post was edited by dumbsocrates on Jun 3, 2009, 12:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Jun 3, 2009, 3:54 PM
Post #37 of 43
(834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Just for the record,we remain the "Live Free or Die" state.We don't have "click it or ticket",only persons under 18 are required to buckle up,you can still ride your motorcycle without a helmet,there is no income or sales tax.The best climbing in the state is at Cathedral,Whitehorse,Crawford or Franconia Notch,and these are all state parks,and,you guessed it,free.The White Mountain National Forest also contains some climbing,which you will be charged to park in,by the fed.The fed will then use your money to unbuild something they built a few years back.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jun 3, 2009, 4:42 PM
Post #38 of 43
(817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
irregularpanda wrote: pfwein wrote: The legal enforceability of an invoice sent by a rescue agency to a rescuee raises interesting issues and I don't know how they would be resolved. Good point. Here's what happens in oregon/mt hood. There was a big debate about this a couple years back because of an extremely costly rescue.... basically some fools from texas decided to attempt a technical route despite the fact that a large storm cell was moving in. It became one of the most costly rescues in the history of Mt hood, in more ways than just monetary. The taxpayers had to foot the bill, and if I remember right, rescuers died. Here's a short interview concerning that incident. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/...d-steve-rollins.html I wish I could have found a better article about it, it was a heated debate up there for a while.
be nice
The wife one of them wrote a book about her husband climbing the American Everest in winter" and how she felt......
|
|
|
|
|
puerto
Jun 4, 2009, 5:21 AM
Post #39 of 43
(793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 229
|
Theoretically they could, but epistemologically it's a long shot.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Jun 4, 2009, 5:34 AM
Post #40 of 43
(787 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
puerto wrote: Theoretically they could, but epistemologically it's a long shot.
i love seeing people use big words in ways that are just, well, wrong. hopefully you thought you were riding the sarcasm train.....though, sometimes i can't even tell when i'm riding it....
like, man, am i on now?
how bout now?
now?
how bout now?
|
|
|
|
|
puerto
Jun 4, 2009, 8:41 AM
Post #41 of 43
(780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: 229
|
altelis wrote: puerto wrote: Theoretically they could, but epistemologically it's a long shot. i love seeing people use big words in ways that are just, well, wrong. hopefully you thought you were riding the sarcasm train.....though, sometimes i can't even tell when i'm riding it.... like, man, am i on now? how bout now? now? how bout now?
Not quite just this minute, but you're getting close..
|
|
|
|
|
nhgill
Jun 4, 2009, 12:42 PM
Post #42 of 43
(771 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 19
|
the motto is often misinterpreted, it actually states "Live, freeze, and die" 
HTG
|
|
|
|
|
|
