Punishing the stupid

[crashdive123]

New Hampshire, and other states I imagine, have a law on the books that basically states that if you recklessly endanger yourself in the wilderness you will be billed for the search and rescue efforts. Looks like a new bill will lower the threashold a bit and increase the penalties, including a loss of driving license if you fail to pay. I am not a big fan of more or bigger government, but this, I do agree with. Search and rescue guys and gals risk their lives every day. Often to rescue the stupid. If stupid was painful, there would probably be alot less of it.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp

[Ridge Wolf]

They should pay search and rescue people... and very well. S&R should be like military units that sit on standby until called into action.. (I don't mean they sit on their a**) they practice to be ready just like the military does.

[Ole WV Coot]

Ignorance is no excuse for stupidity. They should pay a stiff fine plus compensate the men & women who stick their necks out for them.

[canid]

in that case, there should also be a 'don't come looking order' for trip plans. you could place them at the trail-head or file them with the parks service, etc to escape liability in the event of ineptitude or bad luck...

[Alpine_Sapper]

They should pay search and rescue people... and very well. S&R should be like military units that sit on standby until called into action.. (I don't mean they sit on their a**) they practice to be ready just like the military does.

The SAR units down here are not entirely volunteer. Texas Task Force 1 is comprised of EMS personnel like Fire and EMT's, and also a volunteer force. The "volunteer" force is paid for the call, but not on salary at all times. All the SAR personnel I train with are constantly training. TTF1 was one of the units that responded to the WTC bombing.

[Rick]

I really have mixed feelings about this. All of us enjoy time in the woods but think about a simple mistake being deemed "negligent" and receiving a bill of $10,000 that has to be paid in 30 days. With increasing pressure on departmental budgets, there will probably be more departments willing to deem SAR missions "negligent" to offset costs. That's not good government in my opinion. While it's easy to condemn some wilderness wannabe for getting lost, what happens when it's you and it was a broken leg. "The type of boots you wore have been judged inadequate for the terrain and you have therefore been judged "negligent" and will be charged for the trip."

Some other measures might have been more appropriate than destroying a family financially over a stupid, careless, or uneducated mistake. IMHO.

[crashdive123]

What brought me to the article was a news story that I watched on cable news. The reporter that did the interviews had some of the same questions about what would be deemed negligent. I think for the most part what the lawmakers and SAR people were saying would fit the definition of "bare wilderness numpty's". Their law has been on the books since 1996, and is now being changed. I agree with the concerns that arise when any lawmaking body enacts laws "to increase revenue streams".

[Rick]

Some form of community service in educating others about what can happen might be more appropriate. While it doesn't cover the initial costs of the SAR rescue it would help establish an education program that could impact future costs by reducing the number of overall missions.

I agree that no one should get off without some penalty. Missions are expensive and often place others' lives at risk. I just think the idea should be to reduce the number of missions rather than recovering the cost of same.

It is a good, thought provoking post, however.

[Ridge Wolf]

People that enlist in SAR units go into that venture knowing that it is a volunteer unit and activity (with the possible exception of those in the Texas Task Force et al?) I still think that all SARs should be paid on a salary or other means by the government to be on standby and not charge the victim(s) of the accident. It should be one of the foremost obligations of the government to serve the people of the country right? (dig: not going off to form little americas in foreign lands). Where is the money for our food crop and other administries if it is being spent overseas on all kinds of capitalist and 'other' adventures. Hmm, sorry, I am getting off on a tangent but to make that point of affording the salaries I thought it was a necessary comment. Back on subject.. The government should also offer as mandatory, through schools and other avenues, survival training to all citizens regardless of an interest in the subject. The better educated the people are would of necessity prevent a lot of mishaps that occur in the wilderness. Maybe this mandatory training is being given to all of us in other geographical areas of the country and I don't know about it.. but I don't think it is happening here.. at least to my knowledge.

[Catfish]

I'm with Rick on this one. While it might seem like a good idea on the surface, the potential for abuse is enormous.

The rural county in which I live has a very low revenue base - almost all the local businesses are located across the county line, and the majority of the county's population live in one corner. The Sheriff's department is funded almost entirely by tickets written to motorists and the local cops are infamous for stopping drivers on the slightest pretext in the hopes of finding something juicer.

The last ticket I got came after a deputy followed me for 3 miles before pulling me in and claiming I was doing 15mph over the speed limit. When I asked why I would do that when I was obviously aware I was being followed, she told me to get my speedometer fixed. (I had it checked and it was fine.) I could have fought it but it would have been my word against hers and who are they going to believe? Basically, she stole $125 from my wallet. If I were to be in a wreck, I wouldn't want that deputy determining that I was at fault and needed to pick up the tab for the police presence.

Like most SAR groups, our Fire Departments are volunteer and are funded by donations. If laws like this one take off, will people be charged if their home fires were deemed to be 'negligent'? I'll best most house fires 'could' fit into that category, but it would mean a lot of people would have to make the choice of saving their properties at the expense of years of debt.

Likewise, an injured hiker, or the companions of an injured hiker are going to have to decide just how badly they need expert help. I don't have $10,000 in my hip pocket but say I get hurt hiking with you, and perhaps I'm unconscious, are you going to call for help on my behalf?

Sorry, but I think there are better ways to fund SAR.

[Rick]

We currently fund fire runs and false burglar alarms (over 3 a month). While home insurance pays for the fire run, we all pay for it in higher insurance premiums.

I would really like to hear the opinion of those of you that are SAR members. You probably see this in a much different light than me. You at least view it from a different angle so your opinion would be helpful.

[crashdive123]

People that enlist in SAR units go into that venture knowing that it is a volunteer unit and activity (with the possible exception of those in the Texas Task Force et al?) I still think that all SARs should be paid on a salary or other means by the government to be on standby and not charge the victim(s) of the accident.

I think that it is important to remember that the government doesn't have any money unless they take it from you and me. There is no such thing as a free ride.

[Alpine_Sapper]

We currently fund fire runs and false burglar alarms (over 3 a month). While home insurance pays for the fire run, we all pay for it in higher insurance premiums.

I would really like to hear the opinion of those of you that are SAR members. You probably see this in a much different light than me. You at least view it from a different angle so your opinion would be helpful.

I've only recently gotten into SAR a few months back, and am still working towards my full certification. I disagree with the law to a large degree, and have the same basic sentiments towards it that most of the other members of the board have voiced. I think there is a HUGE potential for abuse. I also think that most SAR organizations will not be the ones to abuse this, but the lawmakers and prosecuters in the area of responsibility. A large part of the analysis of whether this is negligence or not will be determined by the after action report given by the SAR personnel. Most SAR personnel do it out of a sense of responsibility or caring for other humans or the community. That being said, unless it really is negligence, most of the AAR's will reflect that the person was genuinely in trouble and not being negligent, which hopefully will tie the DA's hands in prosecuting the person with an enormous bill.

One thing that would make SAR a lot easier, especially in remote wilderness settings, is if it was mandatory for people to carry a PLB. While they can be cost prohibitive at around $500, there are cheaper models that work effectively, and the government could start a program through the Parks and Wildlife division where you can get one on a payment plan or something. Probably wishful thinking, but at that point, since the newer 406 Mhz beacons are basically a GPS broadcaster with a 121.5 Mhz "homing beacon", you could be deemed billable for the SAR call if you don't have one. It would save hundreds of hours of search time over a lot of cases.

Again, how do you determine if Johnny was being negligent in the woods? Did he wander off with just a knife and a metal match playing "Les Stroud" to put on youtube, and got his azz caught up? Yeah, bill the family. Let the youtube video make him some money to pay for it. Did he go for a two week alpine backpacking trip, and not take sufficient cold weather gear? Bill him. Suzy was inexperience, and slipped and fell, but she was also de-hydrated and malnourished to the point of exhaustion? There's to many variables there for ME to say, but I'm sure a DA would say the dehydration and lack of food could have been prevented by taking a rest and replenishing the energy that she needed, and otherwise she wouldn't have had the slip and fall.

Just my $.02

[Rick]

Good points, especially the PLB. Perhaps offer them as a rental at the trail head or lease one for a specified period of time. Like a prepay cell phone. Can you say business opportunity?

[Ridge Wolf]

Good points, especially the PLB. Perhaps offer them as a rental at the trail head or lease one for a specified period of time. Like a prepay cell phone. Can you say business opportunity?

A PLB is a good idea.... we have those here 'on a voluntary basis' and they are rentable. I don't think they offer an option to buy it but even then you would have to have it connected to the rental authorities system. There are only certain areas that the rental authority operates in too. Very limited and that is the Mt. Hood area of Oregon. If a person were to go up into the Mt. St. Helens area or the Mt. Adams Wilderness area.. there are no other means of communication, save cell phone if you have coverage there or Ham Radio Operators.. there has to be somebody listening. CB radios are not very good in the moutains. So, the PLB would necessarily have to be operated on a wider terrain.. I could almost say that it is possible to connect it to the aircraft beacon system but I don't know if that is allowed with the FAA. Lots of hurdles to cross over to get where the PLB system in all areas is feasible for everyone.

Yes, a community outreach for education in survival training is a better idea than to officially offer it in the school system. Not everybody goes into the wilderness. As far as charging a person for negligence for mishaps out there... that is a tough call because the issue can be tied up in the court system for years and years. But then, it isn't against the law to get hurt in an accident.. foreseen or unforeseen.

[MCBushbaby]

"911, Hi. I walked out into the arizona desert on a trail, or at least what appeared to be one, and now I'm stuck somewhere in the canyons."
"Sir, do you have a compass?"
"No, and I have no water. In hindsight I should have brought at least some water into the desert but I've been getting these really bad headaches. Think it's Giardia?"
"Sir, we'll send someone out as soon as dawn breaks, but we can't go searching in the middle of the night"
"Well golly gee, I'm lost and in fea rof my life and you're not going to drop everything, brief a couple dozen people in the middle of the night, and come look for my dumb as.... ooooo. It was my fault I got lost. I finally get it!"

I wholeheartedly agree. People who stupidly get lost should be fined and pay for the SAR cost. However how do you draw the lined between the bloak above and some knowledgeable hiker lost in the Sierras?

[Alpine_Sapper]

.. I could almost say that it is possible to connect it to the aircraft beacon system but I don't know if that is allowed with the FAA. Lots of hurdles to cross over to get where the PLB system in all areas is feasible for everyone.
.

The satellite system (Cospas-Sarsat) that monitors the 406 Mhz emergency band handles PLB's, EPIRB (Emergenc Position Indicating Radio Beacons) for marine emergencies, and ELT's (emergency Locator Transmitters) for airplanes. According to the SAR manual:

"Cospas-Sarsat is an international humanitarian SAR system that uses satellites to detect and locate emergency becaons carried by ships, aircraft, and individuals. the system consists of a network of satellites, ground stations, mission control centers, and rescue coordiantions centers...."

"The SARSAT systemwas developed in a joint effort by the United States, canda, and France. The COSPAS systems was deveopled by Russia. These four nations banded together in 1979 to form cospas-sarsat. In 1982, the first satellite was launched and the first life was aved using the system. By 1984, the system was declared full operational..."

"The Cospsas-Sarsat organization also continue to grow. The four original member nations have, as of this writing, been joined by 31 other nations that operate 47 ground stations and 25 Mission Control Centers...".

The same satellites that handle the PLB's monitor the ELT's. It's going to depend on whether your on the 406 Mhz band, as the 121.5 is just a "heartbeat" homing beacon. Not all planes (mainly privately owned aircraft) are on the 406Mhz band, but they are considering passing a law to make it mandatory.

[Ridge Wolf]

The satellite system (Cospas-Sarsat) that monitors the 406 Mhz emergency band handles PLB's, EPIRB (Emergenc Position Indicating Radio Beacons) for marine emergencies, and ELT's (emergency Locator Transmitters) for airplanes. According to the SAR manual:

"Cospas-Sarsat is an international humanitarian SAR system that uses satellites to detect and locate emergency becaons carried by ships, aircraft, and individuals. the system consists of a network of satellites, ground stations, mission control centers, and rescue coordiantions centers...."

"The SARSAT systemwas developed in a joint effort by the United States, canda, and France. The COSPAS systems was deveopled by Russia. These four nations banded together in 1979 to form cospas-sarsat. In 1982, the first satellite was launched and the first life was aved using the system. By 1984, the system was declared full operational..."

"The Cospsas-Sarsat organization also continue to grow. The four original member nations have, as of this writing, been joined by 31 other nations that operate 47 ground stations and 25 Mission Control Centers...".

The same satellites that handle the PLB's monitor the ELT's. It's going to depend on whether your on the 406 Mhz band, as the 121.5 is just a "heartbeat" homing beacon. Not all planes (mainly privately owned aircraft) are on the 406Mhz band, but they are considering passing a law to make it mandatory.

Well, ya see... not everyone knows that.. even me.. :D

[Rick]

I was thinking of the sat version of PLB. Ridge, I guess you offer up another alternative that I wasn't aware of.

Doug Ritter has some great information on his site on PLBs.

http://www.equipped.org/plb_legal.htm

[bulrush]

A few years back, the city of Wyoming, Michigan started charging people a surcharge of $50 if they got in an accident in the city of Wyoming. The idea was to encourage people to drive more safely. (The article didn't mention if everyone involved was charged $50 or or only the at-fault people were.) The effect was that people stayed out of Wyoming, and business suffered, thus lowering taxes collected by the city. Now the city council is thinking of canceling the surcharge.

[Ridge Wolf]

I was thinking of the sat version of PLB. Ridge, I guess you offer up another alternative that I wasn't aware of.

Doug Ritter has some great information on his site on PLBs.

http://www.equipped.org/plb_legal.htm

That is good to know about.. and they have been available since 2003? Well, I didn't know that.. but then, the price is way out of range I think. They should be cheaper... and considering that not everybody that goes into the woods can afford them even at a lower price.. and given the criteria that you can't make a person buy this or that easily in the first place, I don't look to see a lot of them being sold or carried in the near future. Most people think that nothing is going to happen to them in the wilderness... for some reason?? Since they have been available I have only heard of the rental version for a specific area here locally.

[Rick]

I would bet they are going to be a lot like calculators. The price will come down as more companies enter the market and as technology improves the manufacturing process. There are still folks that venture into the snow country without locators or an Avalung (slowly shakes his head). How much is your life worth?

[chiggersngrits]

i smell an opportunity....."rescue insurance"

[Aurelius95]

I saw a commercial the other day with none other than Les Stroud advocating a PLB from a company called SPOT - Satellite Personal Tracker (I guess you could replace the "O" with an "I" and call it SPIT). You buy the device, similar in size to a GPS is a locator that you can activate in an emergency. For additional cost, you can actually track your waypoints via Google Maps so that your family can track your progress. If something were to happen, you activate the device and it will connect to the ERT. For an additional $8/yr, you purchase an additional $100,000 of search and rescue resources.

http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx

[Rick]

Doug Ritter did a pretty comprehensive write up on SPOT. You can view it here:

http://www.equipped.org/SPOT_ORSummer2007.htm

[Alpine_Sapper]

I saw a commercial the other day with none other than Les Stroud advocating a PLB from a company called SPOT - Satellite Personal Tracker (I guess you could replace the "O" with an "I" and call it SPIT). You buy the device, similar in size to a GPS is a locator that you can activate in an emergency. For additional cost, you can actually track your waypoints via Google Maps so that your family can track your progress. If something were to happen, you activate the device and it will connect to the ERT. For an additional $8/yr, you purchase an additional $100,000 of search and rescue resources.

http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx

That's not a bad device for the price. Only issue I have with it is that they use an independent satellite system instead of the Cospas-Sarsat system. It's kinda like calling 911, or calling Brinks, then having Brinks call 911 and relaying the message imho. However, since it's only ~$170, it's not a bad way to have the extra layer of security and shave a couple hundred $'s off the price.

[marberry]

thats an awesome device , i just might buy one...

[Excalibur]

stupid is painfull each time I go out to the job I deal with stupid...the headachs are getting worse a majority of accidents in the woods that lead to SAR comming and bailing out your backside could have been prevented with planing, common sense, and patience. A little survival training should be mandatory for anyone going hiking, fishing, or hunting with that and some luck you might not need SAR as much save real aw crap situations (read zombie attacks)

[BlackDog]

I think you take the bad with the good. And though I am certainly not an advocate for negligent behavior, I think pre-hike education is a better way of raising money for our park systems than making a law that will destroy lives by sending people huge bills from the government.

I'm a volunteer SAR K9 handler in training, live and cadaver, and I'm addicted to it. It gives me and my 2 labs a purpose. If you start paying people for a job historically performed by volunteers, you run the risk of contaminating groups with people who have other agendas than strictly rescuing subjects. Right now everyone I know in SAR is strictly a volunteer and is driven by one thing: the chance that we might get a call-out to rescue someone.

We are a family where we know everyone else in the organization has the same objective. If you pay people, then you break up the team atmosphere that is so important in SAR. By having "SAR Businesses" popping up everywhere with competitive salaries and all the cut-throat trash we deal with in our day jobs. Right now, solely the Act of Rescuing and Training with people you have a close bond with is what makes the organization function efficiently. Money would ruin it. It's a nice escape to have something 100% pure and clean like a volunteer rescue organization with only great hearted people in my life.

[bulrush]

There are always a few people who are always foolish, and training doesn't help them a bit.

[trax]

I've been following this one for some time. I really enjoyed BlackDog's point of view, nice to hear from a purist. Through the whole thing I keep bouncing back and forth between ...well, there are certainly always numpties going out there to....I don't want more government anywhere. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[BlackDog]

I agree that the training probably wouldn't do much. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions. Making them pick up trash around the park for 50 hours would do more for my park going experience, if their has to be a punishment. However, I'm against the idea of making it monetary punishment (too big government for me) b/c through a series of crazy events someone who was being completely responsible might fall into a situation where it looks like they were acting foolishly. I wouldn't want to be that unlucky individual. What if that person was trying to help someone out there who was about to act foolishly and ended up stuck so that they both needed to be rescued. Do they share the rescue bill 50/50, 70/30? It's too objective to draw the line. What is foolish and dopy to one person might not be to another, so who is going to decide who gets convicted and sent a bill for $10K, the government? I wouldn't voluntarily vote that decision into the hands of room full of politicians. They have more control over my life than I'm comfortable with as is.

[Excalibur]

well its one way to get stupid out of the gene pool

[Alpine_Sapper]

well its one way to get stupid out of the gene pool

The earth doesn't have enough millenia left in it for that to happen.

[Excalibur]

wow I feel a rant comming on... Im for removing warnng lables if your dumb enough to shower while trying to dry your hair you deserve what you get, if you feel it is nessesary to watch the bug bombs work first hand...yup you got it comming, if you think fishing out your stuck toast with a knife good riddance, warning lable are there because an idiot tried it sued and won

[Rick]

I don't know. Believe it or not there are those folks that just don't know. It's easy for us to see the error but that's based on our past experience and education and maybe a near miss here and there. Folks that don't have the same background simply don't know there is a risk. A good example comes to mind.

I read an article in Sports Afield or Field and Stream several years ago about some guy that wanted to take some nice pictures of bears. He had no knowledge of bears, had never interacted with them, had no outdoor experience. So he headed for the back country and walked several miles from his car and boy was he lucky. There was a momma and two cubs. He started snapping pictures as momma was ambling toward him. The last one was of her right in front of the camera. You know what happened. The author, also a wildlife photographer, said some people don't realize that many of our shots are staged. Animals in captivity for the close ups. Not standing in the middle of a meadow where this poor guy was. You learn or sometimes you die. We've been pretty lucky, huh?

[Aurelius95]

The thing that gets me is sometimes the stupid ones don't pay - it's the innocent victims. Take, for example, the news I woke to in Atlanta today. An Acura was flying down the interstate last night over 100 mph and sideswiped an aiport taxi (van). The van flipped, ejecting 7 people and killed 3. The guy is still at large. They'll catch him, undoubtedly, but no matter what his punishment is, it will never be enough.

Like Rick said in the post above, some people just don't know and haven't been educated on what we may have already known or have learned. Sometimes they learn the hard way. How many of us have done something foolish, only to realize how close we were to _____________ (fill in the blank - losing our life, losing a hand or finger, killing a buddy, etc.)

[Tahyo]

I don't know. Believe it or not there are those folks that just don't know. It's easy for us to see the error but that's based on our past experience and education and maybe a near miss here and there. Folks that don't have the same background simply don't know there is a risk. A good example comes to mind.

I read an article in Sports Afield or Field and Stream several years ago about some guy that wanted to take some nice pictures of bears. He had no knowledge of bears, had never interacted with them, had no outdoor experience. So he headed for the back country and walked several miles from his car and boy was he lucky. There was a momma and two cubs. He started snapping pictures as momma was ambling toward him. The last one was of her right in front of the camera. You know what happened. The author, also a wildlife photographer, said some people don't realize that many of our shots are staged. Animals in captivity for the close ups. Not standing in the middle of a meadow where this poor guy was. You learn or sometimes you die. We've been pretty lucky, huh?

I wonder if that was the couple that was interacting with the grizzles and they found what was left of their bodies. I think it was in Alaska.

[Rick]

No, it wasn't. This guy made all the papers because they had this series of photos of the bear advancing on him and he was apparently oblivious to the danger until the last few seconds. It may have been Charles Gibbs. I just don't remember for certain.

Here's a book, Mark of the Grizzly, that has some really good information in it. This particular guy was packing a .45 and, according to the rangers, a .45 won't stop a charging grizzly. What it will do is give you a false sense of security so you are more apt to do something stupid.

http://books.google.com/books?id=edKX8lRjoxgC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=charles+gibbs+killed+by+bear&source=web&ots=K2CqmXoVxV&sig=WCxbrOJ7YPOpiP4rxyS7JyhGTAc&hl=en

[Alpine_Sapper]

. This particular guy was packing a .45 and, according to the rangers, a .45 won't stop a charging grizzly. What it will do is give you a false sense of security so you are more apt to do something stupid.



Hmm...a .45 won't, eh? I'd like to see them prove that theory. :D

I mean seriously, emtpy a .45 into the face/neck area of bear, or spray it with some pepper spray....Hmmm....Sorry all you bear huggers out there, but I gotta go with the slugs anyday. I think the reason most people can't stop the bear with a .45 is because they're too busy shaking to shoot straight.

[Beo]

A little off topic here, but the moron that stabbed me plead "No Contest" and got 3 years and 4 months in London Correctional Inst.

[Rick]

Outstanding!! Glad to have you back. How did the outing go?

[nell67]

Not long enough,Beo!!!!!!!:mad:

[crashdive123]

Hey - Welcome back Beo.

[Beo]

Me and my son had a great time, got a little wet and cold but we sucked it up and had a great time. Been in SRT training and still got some more to do so I'll be in and out for a while. Hope everything is going good here.

[Beo]

Hey, Crash how ya been bro?

[crashdive123]

Better than some, worse than others. Fair to midland I guess. Headed off to work now. Everybody have fun and stay safe.

[Alpine_Sapper]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4008667.ece

So, do you guys agree that if they more than double in profit the cost of the mission, they should be financially responsible?

[Rick]

I have to say yes. I don't know what amount but it seems morally wrong to me to be paid for doing something stupid and not compensate those who put their lives at risk to find and rescue you. Had they not received compensation then I would have said no. Next time, perhaps the chopper should question whether they would pay before picking them up.

Paraswimmer shouting: "If you sign a book deal do you agree to compensate us?"
Man in water: "H**l, no!"
Paraswimmer speaking into headset, "He doesn't want rescued, captain."
Chopper fades into the sunset.
Man in water, "Uh, can I rethink my answer?"

[crashdive123]

Yep 456789

[Alpine_Sapper]

I'm thinking like, £500,000 for the book deal, the SAR guys are asking like £194,000. Hmmm...Seems to me, you'll have like £306,000 left over....~$600,000. More than enough compensation for being a moron. On top of that, if I was the guy's dive insurance agent, I'd be doing a complete investigation with thorough interviews of everyone involved before paying out that claim. And in the future, I think I'd include a clause in the policy that if they profit in this manner they have to cover any expenses themselves and it negates the payout.

[Rick]

They may get to anyway. Insurance companies don't tend to believe in double compensation so the fact they are being compensated might cause the insurance company to hold up payment. Could be an interesting twist.

[klkak]

Man in sinking boat prays and asks God to save him
Just then another boat shows up and the crew try to help him
The man refuses the help telling the crew that God will save him
Next a Chopper flys over and tries to help him.
Again he refuses and says that God will save him.
The man drowns and when he gets to heaven He asks God
Why didnt you save me? I was faithfull and waited.
God says I tried to but you refused.

[DOGMAN]

Honestly, I am very against the idea of mandatory PLB's or having paid military influenced SAR units. To me this is against the entire idea of why we have Wilderness Areas.

Humanity needs wild places were people can get lost, cold, hurt and killed. I don't want to live in a world were if I am running late, or feeling a little scared I can just press a button and have a helicopter sweep down and whisk me to the safety of civilzation and then send me an invoice to pay for the "rescue" later.

If we think Wilderness skills are lacking now amongst the hoardes of humans- imagine were the skills levels will plummet to if we can't learn through our misadventures. Being quickly rescued doesn't make you learn- freezing, starving, etc...make you want learn.

[Ken]

Honestly, I am very against the idea of mandatory PLB's or having paid military influenced SAR units. To me this is against the entire idea of why we have Wilderness Areas.

Humanity needs wild places were people can get lost, cold, hurt and killed. I don't want to live in a world were if I am running late, or feeling a little scared I can just press a button and have a helicopter sweep down and whisk me to the safety of civilzation and then send me an invoice to pay for the "rescue" later.

If we think Wilderness skills are lacking now amongst the hoardes of humans- imagine were the skills levels will plummet to if we can't learn through our misadventures. Being quickly rescued doesn't make you learn- freezing, starving, etc...make you want learn.

How about the kids who may be lost with their foolish parents when such things happen? :eek:

[Rick]

Or the kids who lose foolish parents to such mishaps?

[DOGMAN]

How about the kids who may be lost with their foolish parents when such things happen? :eek:

Well, as long as we are going to worry about the children, why don't we just get the Government to Nerf America, so in case a kid falls down, or runs into something they won't get hurt.

Unfortunatly, as philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out "Life is nasty, brutish, and short" Even if we give everyone locator beacons, and have helicopters on standby- they are still eventually going to die. So, in essence we haven't saved anyone- all we have done is destroyed Wilderness for everyone else.

[Rick]

I like that Nerf idea. But hang the kids I need it for me.

[Ken]

Well, as long as we are going to worry about the children, why don't we just get the Government to Nerf America, so in case a kid falls down, or runs into something they won't get hurt.

Unfortunatly, as philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out "Life is nasty, brutish, and short" Even if we give everyone locator beacons, and have helicopters on standby- they are still eventually going to die. So, in essence we haven't saved anyone- all we have done is destroyed Wilderness for everyone else.

I see your point. I disagree, but I see your point.