Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas? No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


There are "levels" of harms way.

D.Duck wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


There are "levels" of harms way.

Yes, and driving a car on many highways is statistic wise, very
dangerous.

D.Duck wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.



There are "levels" of harms way.



THere is one constant, kevin will go out of his way to argue, and end up
making an ass of himself.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.
2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.
3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on the price
of food for their premiums.

etc... etc...

It just happens that most folks plan on something happening and get
insurance to protect themselves. It doesn't mean that the get out of the
jamb for free it just means that they paid into a pool of money (insurance
company) that expects to pay out every once in a while. Did he have
insurance? I think he did. He had a sat phone and a super EPIRB. He also
had a provisioned life raft and a provisioned boat for a round the world
sail. It sounds to me that he was ready for mishap.

Will he get a bill - I would think so.

Rick wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.


OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.
3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on the price
of food for their premiums.

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

basskisser wrote:
Rick wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not stop the
effort to save a human life.
I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.

Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.
You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.

EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.
3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on the price
of food for their premiums.

EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around Tierra
Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world record?
Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.


EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.

Animal05 wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Rick wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:

I agree. If folks put themselves in harms way intentionally and
end
up
needing rescue they should pay the bill. But that should not
stop the
effort to save a human life.

I don't know about you, but around here we pay taxes just for those
things. You are putting yourself in harms way every time your
furnace
turns on, risk of fire, you know. You are putting yourself in
harms way
when you go outside and get your mail, you are always at some
sort of
risk. So, again in these parts we pay taxes for fire departments,
emergency services and such.


Not the same. Intentionally putting oneself at undue risk is not
the same
as
everyday going-about-your-life risks. (Unless you're a whiny ****bag
"everyone should pay for my mistakes and welfare"
run-the-****ing-country-into-the-ground and
sue-everyone-that-has-any-money
Socialist, I guess)

Need a rescue because you were in an auto accident? Sure thing.
Need a rescue because you were going 110 mph trying to drag race or
outrun
the police? Not on my tax bill, pal.

Need a rescue because your pleasure boat ran aground or ran out of
gas?
No
problem.
Need a rescue because you ran through the "graveyard" around
Tierra Del
Forego during the stormy season while trying to set a world
record? Sure
thing- here's your itemized rescue bill.

You are intentionally putting yourself in harms way every time you get
in your car, go outside to get the mail, get on a plane, go to the
grocery store, plug something into a receptacle, anything.

OK but if you are injured and need help who pays?
1) If you are in a car accident you pay car insurance for just
such a
mishap. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are payed by my tax obligations.

2) If you go outside to get the mail, slip, and fall you have home
owners insurance or medical insurance. So in reality you pay.


EMS and fire services are paid by my tax obligations.

3) If you slip and fall in the grocery store - well this is a
little
tricky but either your insurance or their insurance will pay. If it is
their insurance - you pay because they charge you a little more on
the price
of food for their premiums.


EMS and fire services, again, are paid by my tax obligations.

guess again, you and your insurance company will be billed for EMS and
Fire Services.

Around here, they even bill for police response to car accidents if they
are not a resident of the municipality.
and it appears that many agencies are charging for their SAR services:

Utah is not the only place where lost hikers can be billed for rescues.
Several states, including Idaho, Hawaii and New Hampshire, allow
counties to issue bills. Some ski resorts in Oregon, Washington and
Colorado have also charged for rescues.

The National Park Service does not bill for rescues but has considered
it. The agency spent $3 million on rescue costs last year.

State Sen. John Valentine, a Republican who also is a lieutenant for
Utah County Search and Rescue, sponsored a bill in 1997 that created a
fund to reimburse counties for some search-and-rescue costs.

In fiscal year 2003, counties received more than $153,000 from the fund,
but that represented just a fraction of their expenses. Each of Utah's
29 counties calculates its search-and-rescue budget differently, but
costs commonly range from $60,000 to $100,000. Just one difficult search
can shatter the best financial plans.

Collection laws have drawn protest from critics who view rescue
operations as a tax-funded service, just like firefighting.

"It's almost an entitlement," said Golike of the National Search and
Rescue Association.

Green, the Grand County sheriff's sergeant, said sending a bill to a
family who lost a loved one is a "big gray area" that makes him
uncomfortable, "even though it has been done."

He recalled a search for a missing 13-year-old boy that used airplanes
and helicopters, all-terrain vehicles and at least 50 volunteers. The
effort ended four days later when searchers found the boy's body.

The boy's family received a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.

"They paid as much as they could," Green said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...searches_x.htm

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
[trimmed]
Collection laws have drawn protest from critics who view rescue
operations as a tax-funded service, just like firefighting.

"It's almost an entitlement," said Golike of the National Search and
Rescue Association.

Green, the Grand County sheriff's sergeant, said sending a bill to a
family who lost a loved one is a "big gray area" that makes him
uncomfortable, "even though it has been done."

This is usually a hot topic around here after a big rescue
effort. There are always a few who gripe about their small
taxpayer contribution to such efforts while the volunteers
who man these operations are generally dead set against any
attempt to charge those being rescued.

I think the following article makes some good points.

http://tinyurl.com/yadsck

An excerpt:

The Oregon National Guard flew helicopters in the searches
for the climbers and James Kim and his family, lost in the
Southern Oregon mountains after Thanksgiving. Brig. Gen.
Mike Caldwell said it costs $2,890 an hour to fly a UH-60
Black Hawk, including fuel and maintenance, and $7,500 to
fly the larger CH-47 Chinook. On Mount Hood, the Black Hawks
flew 37 hours and the Chinooks flew 15. But nobody gets
billed for that, Caldwell said.

"From a practical standpoint, we're budgeted for those
hours," he said. "Those flight hours would have been flown
anyway in training. Instead we are able to get our people in
a real-world environment."

-rick-