|
|
|
|
pfwein
Jul 17, 2009, 7:41 PM
Post #51 of 61
(1397 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
welle wrote: First of all, Euros tax hell out of their citizens, which explains their generally socialist approach to healthcare, education and other social aspects.
You may be confusing cause and effect. Stated in logical terms, I think this is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, you think Euros are socialist because they have high taxes; the reverse seems more likely to me.
welle wrote: 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…
While I am not an expert in constitutional law, if I understand you, you seem to be saying that the Park Service permits and/or forbids certain activities in order to comply with Native American religions.
Such action would seem to be violative of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Jul 17, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #52 of 61
(1391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
welle wrote: Grand Canyon NP itself is larger than many if not most European Countries …
The only European countries smaller than GCNP are Andorra, Lichtenstein, San Marino, and the city-states of Luxemburg, Vatican City, and Monacco.
|
|
|
|
|
zchandran
Jul 17, 2009, 7:49 PM
Post #53 of 61
(1387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 120
|
petsfed wrote: 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.
I would hope that it would not be in the hundreds of dollars, but more like $5-$10 per person per day at most. It would be run by NPS, not a private company, so there would be no profit motive, and certainly very little overhead. Basically the equivalent of a backcountry pass but for climbers.
I would imagine BASE jumpers would pay more, but relative risk can be evaluated so that it's fair to everyone.
Of course, it wouldn't be mandatory - if you don't want it just don't take it. But then either pay for rescue or don't call for it. If you can't afford $10 a day, why should you be climbing for weeks at a time and asking taxpayers to fund SAR for you, rather than looking for a job?
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jul 17, 2009, 7:57 PM
Post #54 of 61
(1381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
zchandran wrote: petsfed wrote: 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. I would hope that it would not be in the hundreds of dollars, but more like $5-$10 per person per day at most. It would be run by NPS, not a private company, so there would be no profit motive, and certainly very little overhead. Basically the equivalent of a backcountry pass but for climbers. I would imagine BASE jumpers would pay more, but relative risk can be evaluated so that it's fair to everyone. Of course, it wouldn't be mandatory - if you don't want it just don't take it. But then either pay for rescue or don't call for it. If you can't afford $10 a day, why should you be climbing for weeks at a time and asking taxpayers to fund SAR for you, rather than looking for a job?
Why should you be hiking/swimming/bicycling/sitting-on-yr-ass-and-eating-like-a-fuckin-pig or any of the jillion other things people get hurt/dead/rescued doing in a national park without paying for insurance?
You pay for insurance every time you go in, it's called a user fee, and if you want the NPS to put user fees on a sliding scale, with riskier behaviors costing more, then i suggest we start charging a jillion dollars to all the fat-ass morbidly obese fucktards i see clogging the deli in the ditch every time i have to visit during the season.
|
|
|
|
|
welle
Jul 17, 2009, 8:35 PM
Post #55 of 61
(1359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 212
|
you are right, i exaggerated a bit, but infrastructure-wise the place is too remote. takes 6 hours to drive from rim to rim what is only 10 miles as the crow flies.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Jul 17, 2009, 8:40 PM
Post #56 of 61
(1354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
dingus wrote: But don't you DARE send me a fucking bill.
Live Free or Die!
NH fines MA teen for cost of April mountain rescue
http://www.google.com/...6B-Vp6h0FmgD99GAVMO0
(AP) – 3 hours ago
CONCORD, N.H. — New Hampshire plans to fine a Massachusetts teenager for the cost of rescuing him from Mount Washington in April.
A planned day hike turned into three nights alone in the woods for Scott Mason, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout from Halifax, Mass. He decided to take a shortcut after spraining his ankle, but that emergency route led him into rising water and deep snow caused by unseasonably warm weather.
New Hampshire law allows the Fish and Game Department to charge negligent hikers for the cost of rescuing them from the woods. Mason's family confirmed that he has been fined, but had no other comment Friday.
When the law was tweaked last year, officials estimated that they could seek reimbursement in about 40 of the 140 rescues it typically handles each year.
|
|
|
|
|
zchandran
Jul 17, 2009, 9:05 PM
Post #57 of 61
(1338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2008
Posts: 120
|
k.l.k wrote: Why should you be hiking/swimming/bicycling/sitting-on-yr-ass-and-eating-like-a-fuckin-pig or any of the jillion other things people get hurt/dead/rescued doing in a national park without paying for insurance? You pay for insurance every time you go in, it's called a user fee, and if you want the NPS to put user fees on a sliding scale, with riskier behaviors costing more, then i suggest we start charging a jillion dollars to all the fat-ass morbidly obese fucktards i see clogging the deli in the ditch every time i have to visit during the season.
If you DON'T put user fees on a sliding scale, then activities like BASE jumping cannot be covered. High risk activities have to go once the budget gets tight. The 300lb guy spending money at the deli is a net budget plus for the park. The three 20 year olds who are going to base jump for the first time off El Cap because it'll be the coolest Youtube video ever - not so much. And I would be quite surprised if the morbidly obese cost NPS more than the extremely athletic.
It's really not just limited to BASE. I have to drive 2 hours each way to the nearest decent crag because local parks don't want to assume the liability of climbing. And why should they? Hikers and bicyclists are easy to cover and have fewer and less severe accidents. The powers that be equate climbing with death/injury. It's a lot of the budget being eaten up by a few people, so the easy solution is to just ban climbing. If you put day use fees in place for climbers, their biggest arguments go right out the window.
I have to agree with Dingus that we American climbers are selfish as a group; we assume that we are entitled to taxpayer funded SAR just by virtue of having a cool hobby.
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Jul 17, 2009, 9:08 PM
Post #58 of 61
(1335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
Mistake #1: hiking alone.
Mistake #2: taking a "shortcut"
|
|
|
|
|
welle
Jul 17, 2009, 9:33 PM
Post #59 of 61
(1330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2008
Posts: 212
|
pfwein wrote: . While I am not an expert in constitutional law, if I understand you, you seem to be saying that the Park Service permits and/or forbids certain activities in order to comply with Native American religions. Such action would seem to be violative of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Jul 17, 2009, 10:37 PM
Post #60 of 61
(1302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
zchandran wrote: If you DON'T put user fees on a sliding scale, then activities like BASE jumping cannot be covered. High risk activities have to go once the budget gets tight.
Not all of them-- only those that are socially or culturally marginal. I suppose the whole deal would make more sense if we could reduce the problem to economic rationality. But we can't. Eating like a pig, smoking like a chimney, drinking like a fish, riding bicycles in traffic, handgun ownership, hunting, skiiing, and muscleboating are all culturally acceptable activities in the U.S. with extremely high impacts on the public coffers.
zchandran wrote: I have to drive 2 hours each way to the nearest decent crag because local parks don't want to assume the liability of climbing. . . . If you put day use fees in place for climbers, their biggest arguments go right out the window.
Unless something has really changed in Missouri since I was there, there are far, far more rescues/deaths from drownings, boating accidents, and hunting accidents than from climbing. I'd bet that's true even if we had some way of working it out by population.
I don't know enough about local-- state? county? city? --parks in MO to hazard a guess as to whether a mandatory insurance fee would be feasible. I wish you luck with it as an access project. But it clearly isn't feasible in most of the NPS, USFS, and BLM lands where most climbing takes place west of the 100th meridian. Who would do the certification? Enforcement?
On a peak like Ranier, you could (and we might) return to the bad, old days of the Ranger jumping up and down on yr ice axe to see if it would break before they'd issue you a permit. And climbing became established in Yosemite, despite the reservations and even wishes of the Park Superintendent, largely because the Sierra Club worked as a certifying agent as well as a lobbyist and publicist during the critical decades of the last century. But there's not that many venues that are so small and easily patrolled.
In the event, I would bet money that even if you could put together an economically rational plan for insured-access, in many if not most parts of the US, the local authorities still won't go for it. That's because they think you're a freak, and the other people like you are freaks, and there aren't enough of you to vote them out of office.
This post is way too long. I've had to spend way too much time thinking about his over the past year.
I'll get back to the fat people later.
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
May 7, 2010, 6:12 PM
Post #61 of 61
(1168 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
Looks like probation for Chris might be up soon. Time to file the paperwork.
|
|
|
|
|
|
