Paradox
New member
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 2,268
- Reaction score
- 314
Hey Roy, next time give me call and I'll come and pick you up...for a fee.
Intoxicated or unprepared will pay for rescue or lose license
- Thread starter carole
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
forestgnome
New member
(This is a generic response and not directed at any posters in this thread, but a response to those who responded in the Union Leader)
Please look at the cars in the trailhead parking lot on your next trip. None of them have a monthly payment lower than these pitiful fees. I'm so sick of the whining about a few hundred bucks from people who live in the most priveliged society in history.
If your life was saved and you have a problem repaying a fraction of the cost, you are a drag on liberty.
Please look at the cars in the trailhead parking lot on your next trip. None of them have a monthly payment lower than these pitiful fees. I'm so sick of the whining about a few hundred bucks from people who live in the most priveliged society in history.
If your life was saved and you have a problem repaying a fraction of the cost, you are a drag on liberty.
Last edited:
Craig
New member
Don’t know if anyone’s been following the Mt Cook disasters lately but, this article addresses some of the same issues in a different country.
This issue is definitely cyclical.
You have some rescues because of questionable decisions or happenstance on the part of the hiker/climber, the media gets a hold of it and hits the bees nest.
Everyone starts bitch’n because their tax dollars are being spent on rescuing someone that made a mistake or was unlucky.
The drum of change is beaten for awhile and then it goes silent………until the media hits the bees nest again.
I wouldn’t get too excited about this news. You’ll again, have the opportunity to get excited about the same issue in the not too distant future.
Repeat and enjoy
This issue is definitely cyclical.
You have some rescues because of questionable decisions or happenstance on the part of the hiker/climber, the media gets a hold of it and hits the bees nest.
Everyone starts bitch’n because their tax dollars are being spent on rescuing someone that made a mistake or was unlucky.
The drum of change is beaten for awhile and then it goes silent………until the media hits the bees nest again.
I wouldn’t get too excited about this news. You’ll again, have the opportunity to get excited about the same issue in the not too distant future.
Repeat and enjoy
DougPaul
Well-known member
Some may remember that Oregon went through the same baloney when the three climbers were stranded on the north side of Mt Hood a few years ago.This issue is definitely cyclical.
You have some rescues because of questionable decisions or happenstance on the part of the hiker/climber, the media gets a hold of it and hits the bees nest.
Everyone starts bitch’n because their tax dollars are being spent on rescuing someone that made a mistake or was unlucky.
The drum of change is beaten for awhile and then it goes silent………until the media hits the bees nest again.
I wouldn’t get too excited about this news. You’ll again, have the opportunity to get excited about the same issue in the not too distant future.
Repeat and enjoy
Doug
Trail Bandit
New member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 20
I wonder if anyone has done an audit of how much and for what NH F&G spends money on. I am not a hunter or a fisherman, but I see a lot of F&G enforcement people driving around with various forms of transportation, carrying guns. What is the cost of rescue vs the cost of enforcement?
Note, I have only been rescued once. A large piece of Cannon Cliff fell on me. I suppose I should have been someplace else that day, therefore I was negligent. The rescue was carried out by the nice climbing guides from North Conway. They all probably had something better to do that day, but I never got a bill. They try to help and don't ask to get paid. I will come help any time I am asked.
Ok, the cell phone has opened up a whole new avenue for stupid people to survive.
Note, I have only been rescued once. A large piece of Cannon Cliff fell on me. I suppose I should have been someplace else that day, therefore I was negligent. The rescue was carried out by the nice climbing guides from North Conway. They all probably had something better to do that day, but I never got a bill. They try to help and don't ask to get paid. I will come help any time I am asked.
Ok, the cell phone has opened up a whole new avenue for stupid people to survive.
Mike P.
Well-known member
TB, glad you are okay, routes falling on you will likely keep you from getting a bill, I'd be surprised if slips & falls with fractured ankles & litter carrys get you a bill also.
Generally speaking, drunks heading up after work, hiking in winter in trail runners, winter hiking with only water & a cell phone, etc..... is going to cost you if you need a rescue. (if they could figure out a way to charge people like this who are lucky enough to get away with it, they probably would (& IMO should) charge them just for reckless behavior.
Generally speaking, drunks heading up after work, hiking in winter in trail runners, winter hiking with only water & a cell phone, etc..... is going to cost you if you need a rescue. (if they could figure out a way to charge people like this who are lucky enough to get away with it, they probably would (& IMO should) charge them just for reckless behavior.
Little Rickie
New member
Good idea. Maybe it will be more of a deterrent and take some load off the volunteers.
Might as well raise some revenue from the people that use the service. That'll be good for the budget.
Whiteman
New member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2004
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 24
I like the sentence near the end: "The backcountry is a world with rules of its own, enforced by nature itself."
Grumpy
New member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,503
- Reaction score
- 153
To me, this really is an all-or-nothing matter. Either charge everyone for rescue services, or charge nobody.
The “charge for rescue” law in New Hampshire, selective as it is, appears (to me) to be more punitive than it is an effort at recovering costs. I have a real problem with that.
Recovering costs associated with rescue operations – especially in an era when every expenditure of public money is sure to raise howls from one quarter or another – may make some sense, at least politically. (That doesn’t mean it’s “right,” but it does help make it “acceptable” to the howling masses.) In that case, the enabling law should stand neutral and assess fees to cover or help cover costs in all cases.
Being stupid, foolish or naive only recently has come to be regarded in American thinking as a “crime” to be punished. I think that is a dangerous and disgusting way to travel.
The dunce, fool or naïf is no less or no more in need of assistance than the bright and sophisticated person when the stuff hits the fan. Both are in trouble, and if rescue services are there to reflect a community's sense of compassion and a commitment to “protect and serve” then it should be done without respect or consideration given to “worthiness.”
Yes, of course, under any given set of circumstances the dunce, fool or naïf may be more likely to get into trouble and less able to get himself out of a pickle than his bright and sophisticated counterpart. What they have in common, though, is that the SAR expense in each case only starts to mount when the operation is set in motion.
By charging all, without rendering judgment as to who should and should not get a dummy slap, things automatically will level out. (If ops mounted to save dummies outnumber those mounted to save smarties, then dummies will pay the greater share of cost in maintaining the service.)
The business of lifting driver licenses for those who don’t pay is repugnant on two counts.
First, it is not related to the search incident.
Second, driving a vehicle in today’s world is a virtual life necessity for most people, just to earn our bread and butter. To deprive a person of means to earn a living because he needed rescue from a mountainside or the woods is cruel to the point of being outrageous and beyond anything resembling reason.
G.
The “charge for rescue” law in New Hampshire, selective as it is, appears (to me) to be more punitive than it is an effort at recovering costs. I have a real problem with that.
Recovering costs associated with rescue operations – especially in an era when every expenditure of public money is sure to raise howls from one quarter or another – may make some sense, at least politically. (That doesn’t mean it’s “right,” but it does help make it “acceptable” to the howling masses.) In that case, the enabling law should stand neutral and assess fees to cover or help cover costs in all cases.
Being stupid, foolish or naive only recently has come to be regarded in American thinking as a “crime” to be punished. I think that is a dangerous and disgusting way to travel.
The dunce, fool or naïf is no less or no more in need of assistance than the bright and sophisticated person when the stuff hits the fan. Both are in trouble, and if rescue services are there to reflect a community's sense of compassion and a commitment to “protect and serve” then it should be done without respect or consideration given to “worthiness.”
Yes, of course, under any given set of circumstances the dunce, fool or naïf may be more likely to get into trouble and less able to get himself out of a pickle than his bright and sophisticated counterpart. What they have in common, though, is that the SAR expense in each case only starts to mount when the operation is set in motion.
By charging all, without rendering judgment as to who should and should not get a dummy slap, things automatically will level out. (If ops mounted to save dummies outnumber those mounted to save smarties, then dummies will pay the greater share of cost in maintaining the service.)
The business of lifting driver licenses for those who don’t pay is repugnant on two counts.
First, it is not related to the search incident.
Second, driving a vehicle in today’s world is a virtual life necessity for most people, just to earn our bread and butter. To deprive a person of means to earn a living because he needed rescue from a mountainside or the woods is cruel to the point of being outrageous and beyond anything resembling reason.
G.
Last edited:
Similar threads
