or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Who should pay the costs of rescuing out-of-bound skiers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who should pay the costs of rescuing out-of-bound skiers? - Page 5

post #121 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

I suppose we could write off all the rescue costs to Pentagon budget and local National Guard but usually the rescue groups are more local and they do have costs. Real military training, if deemed necessary should be occurring as part of a regular schedule. An actual rescue is not the time to practice. Likely the lack of practice caused the crash and luckily no one was seriously injured in the crash. But it was an expensive lesson losing the helicopter not to mention the clean up and rescue of the crew.

The question is should public pay for people's risky leisure activities. You get hurt on the mountain, you pay for the ambulance and your lift ticket paid for the ski patrol ride down the mountain. Point of bringing up the crash was what is the maximum charged? Having to pay off a Pavehawk would be a job for several lifetimes.


You pay for it already.... Hospitals charge more to cover some of the debt accumulated by people not paying, consequently the hospitals pass this onto the insurance companies who in turn, pass this on to you and every business (who in turn pass it back to you as well). Insurance is a money making industry but the costs are at a much higher level, because of uninsured people. So you already pay for it everyday in everything you buy including insurance. So you see , uninsured people actually cost you a lot of money.
post #122 of 180

I'm not sure I recall the deleted post(s). But think about it. This is a thread that is 100% socio-political-economic. It cuts directly to cultural and national priorities and perspectives. If you don't want it to "go there" shut it down or admit a bias. It is exactly the public health debate. Do we tell smokers who get cancer: tough luck - go die? Skiers that their ACLs just are not covered (under national or private plans)? Mountain bikers that broken bones and cuts are not covered? Etc... Or if people want to play the natural disaster thing - a whole lot of natural disaster damage is due to building in flood plains and low lying coastal areas. Often in places that common sense and zoning once would have restricted. Should we just say - too bad for you? Where do you draw the line? You can argue either side. And people do. 

 

I think this represents an interesting logical and ethical conundrum. There is no answer I find satisfactory. But let's be real - this is unavoidably a political and economic philosophy discussion of "moral hazard". Artificially culling posts for being "political" is nonsense. That is the heart of the entire question - whether it seems it on the surface or not.

post #123 of 180

The answer is easy.. just ask yourself, "who would jesus deny rescue or health care". Now we've got religion in the mix too! smile.gif

post #124 of 180

As a new mod here, I'm going to dip my toes in the water a bit here. I tend to agree with spindrift's comment regarding the core debate being socio-economic, therefore political by nature. However, the concern is having the discussion drift away from skiing and into pure political ideology and downhill from there. My thought is that the thread would then be more applicable in Politics and Hot Topics but that would deprive many to whom this issue is important, access to follow or comment. So, with that, I would ask that we keep this directed toward skiing and not other political debates regarding other acts not skiing related. Oh, and throwing religion in isn't helping, markojp wink.gif 

post #125 of 180

The cost of rescuing an "out of bounds" skier should be paid by the skier who CHOSE to ski OUT OF BOUNDS.

post #126 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiMark View Post

The cost of rescuing an "any location" person should be paid by the person who CHOSE to be wherever they are.

Fixed... until they don't have the capital or assets to pay for such rescue when in need. That's where society comes in and picks up the slack. Either outlaw all traffic for everyone everywhere, come up with a way to prevent people from leaving their homes without enough insurance to guarantee transport and medical care form everywhere they might go on any given day, or leave it like it is:p
post #127 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


Fixed... until they don't have the capital or assets to pay for such rescue when in need. That's where society comes in and picks up the slack. Either outlaw all traffic for everyone everywhere, come up with a way to prevent people from leaving their homes without enough insurance to guarantee transport and medical care form everywhere they might go on any given day, or leave it like it is:p

That's one of the problems with this country.  No personal accountability nor responsibility.  If someone chooses to ski OUT OF BOUNDS, he/she assumes the risk of that decision should he/she then need a rescue.  Why should I or anyone else have to pay for some individual's decision to ski out of bounds?  You make the choice, you live with it and suffer (pay) the consequences.

post #128 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

I'm still waiting to hear why rescuing skiers from public back country should be billed any differently than rescuing people from other public locations like city streets, interstate highways, etc??

Because whoever foots the public bill may not want to cover backcountry.
post #129 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiMark View Post

That's one of the problems with this country.  No personal accountability nor responsibility.  If someone chooses to ski OUT OF BOUNDS, he/she assumes the risk of that decision should he/she then need a rescue.  Why should I or anyone else have to pay for some individual's decision to ski out of bounds?  You make the choice, you live with it and suffer (pay) the consequences.

Why should I pay the costs for some indigent person that gets hit by a bus walking down the street on their way to work at McDonalds? That was their decision to go work a job. rolleyes.gif They shouldn't have left the house if they couldn't afford to be hit by a bus, Their choice right? Taxes are designed to give us benefits and safety needs we can't finance for ourselves as individuals for various reasons.


Fact is there are VERY few people on the planet that can completely pay ALL of the real costs associated with a complicated back country rescue. And, you can bet that any insurance company will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying all those costs regardless of what the agent promised you when you purchased the policy. Camping, hiking, skiing, biking, walking down the street all can lead to a very costly and dangerous rescue situations.
post #130 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldMember View Post

As a new mod here, I'm going to dip my toes in the water a bit here. I tend to agree with spindrift's comment regarding the core debate being socio-economic, therefore political by nature. However, the concern is having the discussion drift away from skiing and into pure political ideology and downhill from there. My thought is that the thread would then be more applicable in Politics and Hot Topics but that would deprive many to whom this issue is important, access to follow or comment. So, with that, I would ask that we keep this directed toward skiing and not other political debates regarding other acts not skiing related. Oh, and throwing religion in isn't helping, markojp wink.gif 

 

I truly admire the attempt. However, folks use analogies in lots of threads. And since this is intrinsically socio-economic, that is where appropriate analogies and comparisons will come from. I feel for you because this is a hot debate in ski land. And outdoors land in general.  So it deserves it's day in the court of internet forums.

 

However, IMO there is no way to engage in the true breadth of the topic without getting deeply into many of the "political" elements. It is easy to hew to some idealogical view of this until it is your kid or spouse or friend across the line without insurance or a $50K credit limit. Does anyone here suggest letting someone die in plain site because no one is throwing down the cash or an insurance card? We could make that choice as a societal standard. But I'm not sure we'd all like the consequences. And while I'm not religious, the guy markojp mentioned probably would not approve either wink.gif (sorry, could not resist...)

post #131 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abox View Post

Because whoever foots the public bill may not want to cover backcountry.

Then they should just outlaw the activity for all and give up the tax revenues associated with those activities.. or raise taxes..
post #132 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

I truly admire the attempt. However, folks use analogies in lots of threads. And since this is intrinsically socio-economic, that is where appropriate analogies and comparisons will come from. I feel for you because this is a hot debate in ski land. And outdoors land in general.  So it deserves it's day in the court of internet forums.

 

 

I agree with you on this. Where the drift was (that you can't see anymore) taking the thread wasn't analogy, it was off-topic political discussion not being used as an analogy but taking on a life of its own. I'd like to this remain skiing/outdoor activity related.

post #133 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


Then they should just outlaw the activity for all and give up the tax revenues associated with those activities.. or raise taxes..

 

No. Simply because some can't pay does not mean all should be excluded. Just as you need to be an SEC "Qualified Investor", based on net worth, to make certain investments, they can just have a full net worth requirement of at least  million bucks for using the backcountry. Problem solved. wink.gif

post #134 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


Why should I pay the costs for some indigent person that gets hit by a bus walking down the street on their way to work at McDonalds? That was their decision to go work a job. rolleyes.gif They shouldn't have left the house if they couldn't afford to be hit by a bus, Their choice right? Taxes are designed to give us benefits and safety needs we can't finance for ourselves as individuals for various reasons.


Fact is there are VERY few people on the planet that can completely pay ALL of the real costs associated with a complicated back country rescue. And, you can bet that any insurance company will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying all those costs regardless of what the agent promised you when you purchased the policy. Camping, hiking, skiing, walking down the street all can lead to a very costly and dangerous rescue situation.

There is a VAST difference between an "indigent person that get hit by a bus walking down the street on their way to work at McDonalds" and whomever chooses to ski out of bounds.  Walking down the street (for various reasons) is a NECESSARY and REASONABLE occurrence that almost EVERYBODY undertakes and most all of society is willing to (and does) take that risk.

 

Skiing out of bounds, however, is a completely UNNECESSARY and UNREASONABLE risk that very, very, few undertake and the rest of society is not willing to (and doesn't) take that risk and shouldn't have to pay for those that do.

post #135 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

No. Simply because some can't pay does not mean all should be excluded. Just as you need to be an SEC "Qualified Investor", based on net worth, to make certain investments, they can just have a full net worth requirement of at least  million bucks for using the backcountry. Problem solved. wink.gif

Agree, but that was in response to..
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abox View Post

Because whoever foots the public bill may not want to cover backcountry.

The right answer is that the public funds set aside to protect the back country should be available to rescue folks from that back country as needed. Think of it more as rescuing the back country from the gapers and greenhorns if you prefer..
post #136 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiMark View Post

There is a VAST difference between an "indigent person that get hit by a bus walking down the street on their way to work at McDonalds" and whomever chooses to ski out of bounds.  Walking down the street (for various reasons) is a NECESSARY and REASONABLE occurrence that almost EVERYBODY undertakes and most all of society is willing to (and does) take that risk.

 

Skiing out of bounds, however, is a completely UNNECESSARY and UNREASONABLE risk that very, very, few undertake and the rest of society is not willing to (and doesn't) take that risk and shouldn't have to pay for those that do.

OKay well how about the hiker who twisted his ankle up on a 14er. What if the guy was on a detour to buy cigarrettes? Cigarrettes certainly aren't neccessary and large parts of society aren't  accepting the risk, so when he got hit by the bus he meets neither of your criteria. 

 

Besides who deems unreasonable? It certainly isn't neccessary but what makes out of bounds skiing any more unreasonable then any other outdoor activity?

post #137 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

OKay well how about the hiker who twisted his ankle up on a 14er. What if the guy was on a detour to buy cigarrettes? Cigarrettes certainly aren't neccessary and large parts of society aren't  accepting the risk, so when he got hit by the bus he meets neither of your criteria. 

 

Besides who deems unreasonable? It certainly isn't neccessary but what makes out of bounds skiing any more unreasonable then any other outdoor activity?

The hiker (or his insurance) should pay.  Whether he was buying cigarettes or not is irrelevant. 

post #138 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiMark View Post

The hiker (or his insurance) should pay.  Whether he was buying cigarettes or not is irrelevant. 

why not? If I crash my car while racing or driving a hilly mountain for fun that is certainly relevant to how my insurance pays. Why would the activity that I am currently participating in while on the road not be relevant? What if I had a heat stroke while running on the road? Or is everything automatically covered because I am on a road?

post #139 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

The right answer is that the public funds set aside to protect the back country should be available to rescue folks from that back country as needed.


So it's settled then?
post #140 of 180
Double post?

Yes ABOX, settled!biggrin.gif
post #141 of 180
How is the person that chooses to make a living as an outdoor photographer hiking or skiing BC to get those images and needs a rescue different than the person that chooses to earn a living working elsewhere and finds themselves in need of rescue? If it is public land than every member of the public ought to be able to access that land with some element of protection from the government agencies overseeing said public land be it the Highway Patrol, Parks Department, Fish and Wildlife, Sherrif's Department, Local PD, Campus PD, or mall cops. To say that people with more money and better insurance should get more favorable access to public lands than other people is elitist, and un American. Now, to say that people with more financial resources should be able to hire their own heli crews or snow cats or PRIVATE rescue crews is a different matter.
post #142 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiMark View Post

The cost of rescuing an "out of bounds" skier should be paid by the skier who CHOSE to ski OUT OF BOUNDS.

 

Just like all those tourists that get pulled out of the water in Miami... make'm pay!!!  Oh... what's that? The sound of loads of tourist dollars lost. Hmmmmm. Now paying lifeguards starts to make more economic sense. 

 

Lest anyone misunderstands my personal stance, here was my idea on page 1:

 

"To charge or not should be left to the local authorites. Was the party properly prepared and just met with very bad luck, or was it someone truly clueless (no gear, no map, etc...no ability to use anything if they have it). Maybe first offense, no. Steep sliding scale upward for either payment (make it hurt... a percentage of income) OR community service hours equivallent to the total man hours spent in the rescue + mandatory BC travel/safety classes paid for by the rescue-e."

 

 

Maybe the underlined is the most equitable solution.  

 

The world is much more complex than the simple black or white that we've been lead to believe over the past couple of decades. Until we start looking for sensible solutions, all we're going to EVER end up doing as a culture is standing in our own corners yelling and name calling. Why do we do this in all social/political discussions? Because it demands absolutely NOTHING proactive and positive from us. It's expedient and just damned lazy. Show me lazy, and I'll show you a profound lack of imagination to make things better. Not just for 'me', but everyone. Now THAT'S un-American. Somewhere along the way, we've mistaken simple 'self-interest' for 'enlightened self-interest'. 


Edited by markojp - 4/5/13 at 12:43pm
post #143 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

 To say that people with more money and better insurance should get more favorable access to public lands than other people is elitist, and un American.

Not if your Rebuplican! That's a joke, sorry couldn't help myself biggrin.gif

post #144 of 180
Well, there is always the option to privatize the back country. fence it off, and charge admission to all if we can't deal with the costs to rescue people while allowing the general public to go there..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E73RM9gS7bU

post #145 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

Not if your Rebuplican! That's a joke, sorry couldn't help myself biggrin.gif

 

tsk, tsk.... Please keep this on track.

post #146 of 180
Thread Starter 

Back on point:

 

Skier rescue fees out of bounds

 

....some states are thinking of holding ski resorts' feet to the financial fire when it comes to rescuing wayward skiers and snowboarders.

"Rep. Thomas Terenzini, a freshman Vermont state congressman, has sculpted a bill that requires resorts to pay for rescues of skiers who access backcountry terrain through resort boundaries,"

 

In Colorado, you can be fined up to $1000 for going out of bounds or down a closed ski trail. I wonder where the money goes to? If a rescue is required, I hope that money goes to cover part of the rescue.

post #147 of 180
^^^ So, as mentioned over and over some determine the potential costs too high and are thus outlawing the behavior. Instead of trying some hair brained insured folks only scheme someone can run a private pay to play operation for those with more means.. Perhaps someone should try running heli or cat skiing operations someday???

Just curious.. are they also looking at fines for hiking in the same areas?
post #148 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiMark View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


Why should I pay the costs for some indigent person that gets hit by a bus walking down the street on their way to work at McDonalds? That was their decision to go work a job. rolleyes.gif They shouldn't have left the house if they couldn't afford to be hit by a bus, Their choice right? Taxes are designed to give us benefits and safety needs we can't finance for ourselves as individuals for various reasons.


Fact is there are VERY few people on the planet that can completely pay ALL of the real costs associated with a complicated back country rescue. And, you can bet that any insurance company will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying all those costs regardless of what the agent promised you when you purchased the policy. Camping, hiking, skiing, walking down the street all can lead to a very costly and dangerous rescue situation.

There is a VAST difference between an "indigent person that get hit by a bus walking down the street on their way to work at McDonalds" and whomever chooses to ski out of bounds.  Walking down the street (for various reasons) is a NECESSARY and REASONABLE occurrence that almost EVERYBODY undertakes and most all of society is willing to (and does) take that risk.

 

Skiing out of bounds, however, is a completely UNNECESSARY and UNREASONABLE risk that very, very, few undertake and the rest of society is not willing to (and doesn't) take that risk and shouldn't have to pay for those that do.


This is complete nonsense.  Back country and side country skiing are very reasonable risk and enjoyable activities.   There is no valid reason I should be denied access to enjoy skiing on my own (public) land, simply because I cannot afford a helicopter.  

post #149 of 180

It seems to me that search and rescue is a reasonable public safety issue whose costs ought to be borne by government. This is one of the reasons why we have government after all much as why we have police and fire departments.

 

Having said that I recognize that the public does not want to pay for it. This is the destruction of our society in a nutshell. Not being willing to pay for the public sphere that enables a democratic society is just another way of saying no to its existence.

 

Here in New Hampshire, where we like to provide a comfortable tax haven for millionaires at the expense of public services such as  education and search and rescue ( to name just two), the agency tasked with search and rescue is the NH Dept of Fish and Game. This agency which derives its revenue from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and proceeds from federal taxes on some types of outdoor sporting goods does not have adequate funding to carry out this kind of thing. Essentially its hunters and fishermen who are supporting their efforts. The rescue groups that provide much of the manpower and technical skills are volunteers who receive no pay at all. The US Forest Service has no funding for this kind of thing either with the exception of a very limited snow ranger staff at Tuckerman's Ravine. I think its commonly believed that there are all sorts of Forest Rangers out there with nothing else to do but rescue people but this is simply untrue.  The state has given the Fish and Game Dept. authority to require really irresponsible people to provide compensation for the money spent on their search and rescue. That fellow who had to be rescued from the California mountains recently who had lost himself and his girl friend 1/2 mile from their car for several days who was hiking barefoot in shorts with no food or gear at all would, if he had been rescued in NH, most likely be required to pay compensation. So much of what these rescue people see is foolish and irresponsible there is a certain justification for this I think.

 

There is a proposal afoot to enable people to purchase a kind of rescue insurance for a small fee that seems to me to be a reasonable approach to funding search and rescue given the public's unwillingness to support the public sector. I don't really think that being able to enjoy the fruits of life in a civilized society ought  to be only the province of those who can ante up the price but that's the reality of our times.

post #150 of 180

Took out the political escalation and returned to public forums.  This subject deserves to be debated, but please, there is no need to mix in religion, gun control, gay marriage and personal insults. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Who should pay the costs of rescuing out-of-bound skiers?