coldfoot wrote: Most SAR units, county sheriffs etc that I've seen an opinion from on the subject, say the vast majority of their callouts are for day hikers, lost kids, elderly or low-functioning people who wander off, etc. The dramatic searches for backpackers and climbers that make the news are a small fraction.
coldfoot wrote:The problem is, you are never going to get day hikers and tourists, not to mention lost kids, to buy rescue insurance. Yet we as a society (in the US at least) expect the sheriff's dept to go find them, and I think that's appropriate in a civilized society. I just don't think you can persuade the society to charge day-hikers and kids for rescue. So where do you draw the line about who has to carry the insurance or get charged? Anyone out for an overnight? Anyone on class 3 or greater terrain? Anyone with a rope? Anyone who sprays about climbing on the internet? Anyone wearing a softshell, or with a dead-bird logo?
surgent wrote:It's already part of the mandate of the sheriff/DPS and is already part of its budget.
A5RP wrote:There are many other accountability mandates out there where many negligent people are in fact held accountable for their inept irresponsible behaviors.
mrchad9 wrote:Climbers, hikers, weekend warriors, and even tourons are on average fitter than the general population consisting primarily of diabetic and obese lard asses (speaking of the US and not Canada here). There are likely fewer smokers in the outdoor population versus the general public too. Considering the overall cost health care places on our economy I just don’t see a need to create additional fees that might give people another reason to get less exercise. I hardly think people in the outdoors are a burden on society. They are more educated, more productive, pay more taxes, and healthier than many other demographic groups. If the cost of getting people off their butts and out of their homes is a few rescues for the occasional unprepared hiker, then I can live with that. But I suppose that is not at fun as attacking and insulting each other.
Dow Williams wrote:Actually you are dead wrong, it is a social and political issue witnessed first hand right here on this thread...you need to be a bit slow not to recognize that....bureaucrats could toil for years to figure it out vs actually getting shit done, but yes it should be charged and collected...controlled access park rescues charged as an across the board user fee is fine by me...nothing is perfectly equitable, there is no perfect world...but that solution, the one Canada uses for their National Parks (you are more likly to pay for Provincial Park rescue) is much more equitable then anything we currently have in the US....your problem is you lack focus...there are people who get things done and folks who just talk about executing plans.....you would talk yourself into circles trying to implement this. Lets hope you do not get a Washington DC job anytime too soon.....don't need any more of that. I am not looking for a perfect plan, just simply passing the approximate costs of SARS to the individual needing the service, if that individual puts themselves in the BC for recreation or hire.
As to my citizenship, sure I am American. But there is no reason for you to be intimidated by folks from other countries getting into this debate if they so desire. Lets call that irrelevant.
Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:In many states Joe Blow can buy a fishing license, which gets him off the hook for the financial liability of a rescue.
Why should climbers have any different liability?
mrchad9 wrote:Working class family of four has to pay an extra $400 for their once a year family outing to Yosemite?
A5RP wrote:Let us not forget that in order to climb Denali, one must now pay a $350 "Mountaineering Fee" . That too covers the cost of a SAR.
A5RP wrote:I do not the see the rich and famous folks here (mattyj) on SP whining that they had to pay such an exuberant fee in order to climb that hill.
mattyj wrote:It sounds like you and Dow are both okay with covering SAR costs through park entry fees, such that NPS rescues are no-charge. I don't think there's a single person in this thread who feels otherwise.
mattyj wrote:No one is advocating that the taxpayer at large needs to cover all SAR costs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests