Posted on 12/14/2006 9:40:35 AM PST by randita
Kenton said: We don't charge for police and fire service, even when the problem is brought on by the people themselves.
That's not entirely true. In some poorer areas of Alabama, there simply isn't enough tax money for fire service. Locals pay a yearly "subscription" of about $200. If there is a fire, then the fire department comes out and deals with it, free of charge. However, if you do NOT pay this subscription and you have a fire, you are then billed for the entire cost of the operation, which can run into thousands of dollars.
I believe the Runaway Bride in Florida is being required to reimburse local authorities for the $40,000 or so spent looking for her.
It does seem like people deliberately engaging in a risky activity should absorb the cost. If they don't, one day there may not BE funds available to put forth an intensive search and rescue effort.
Well, then you get into your definition of "risky." "Risky" for an out of shape guy with no backwoods experience might be an easy day hike from a trailhead. I understand these guys are expert mountaineers, so taking on this mountain in winter was probably within their skill set. Their main error seems to have been miscalculating the weather forecast.
Thanks for your rational view and explanation.
There is clearly a place here for "risky business" insurance which would be used to reimburse and help protect the general public as well. We need to be careful of how we use public funds so that we actually have money available to help with natural disasters.
There are many precedents for reimbursement of rescue expenses. Mt McKinley requires "rescue insurance" before ascending in Denali Park Alaska. Climbers/hikers in the Swiss Alps are required to have rescue insurance. Others here have mentioned the Grand Canyon rescue reimbursements. Why shouldn't this become a standard procedure!! One real benefit would be that some of these "explorers" might be more careful in preparing and making sure they really are capable of their exploits!
Keep up the good work!
Another benefit of something like this is that could have some control over who tries to do what. I can see requiring "climber's training" just the same as we require "hunter's training" for hunting licenses.
And they could restrict the less experienced climbers to "learner's slopes" instead of having some adventurous neophyte from the big city come out and try to climb Mount Hood equipped with a bottle of mineral water and a couple of granola bars and wearing shorts and a tee shirt.
Let me stop and apologize for proposing all this regulation, I just realized what I was saying. I'm normally against over-regulating human behavior, but I think this is an area where some regulation is needed.
Actually, for the record, I didn't say that, I was quoting Colorado Tanker in order to respond to his comment.
Kenton
Don't concern yourself with "proposing regulations" this is clearly an area that needs attention. I am against most regulations (and most legislators!!) but I think we all need to step back and look at where public funds are being used and explore areas that expenditures can be better managed!!!
I don't like toll roads but I am happy to use them (and pay for them) when I need them. "User fees" such as tolls on limited access roads serve a very useful purpose when their fees are being used to eliminate expenses (or taxes) on non-users!!
Requiring "Rescue Insurance" for those who take part in "extreme activities" is a logical way to limit risk for non-users and help to keep funds available for natural disasters.
Let's keep raising this question with our legislators to see if they will do something!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.