tax the mountain climbers

[Skud]

http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...=55326&catid=2

Here is something I mentioned in another thread. It is illegal to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt. It is illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving (I don't have a problem with that one: a lot of folks drive poorly with all of their attention focused on the road). It is not illegal to climb a mountain.

So, a broke state, California, has to pay rescuers to risk their lives to haul these guys off a mountain...and, if climbing a mountain if not risky enough these guys are doing it during prime avalanche conditions:

"Recent snow and ice have resulted in active avalanche conditions throughout the Sierra range. Officials warn that avalanche danger in the steep terrain is high."

I say wait for spring to go get them. Hey, people should be able to do what they want; but they shouldn't expect others to come to their rescue if they take part in inherently risky activities. Just my thoughts.

[linemanstud]

I agree with your conclusion on this one skud. If people want to do dangerous things, we should let them...as long as they take responsibility and suffer the consequences. As I have said in several other threads though, people in this country are taking less and less responsibility for their actions because they are finding it easier (and more profitable) to blame it on others. The only thing that I will say for mountain climbers is that they know that what they do is dangerous, so I seriously doubt they would go off and try to sue someone for an accident (unless its a catastrophic equipment failure, in which case the company is probably responsible for making a batch of faulty equipment).

[Hammy]

We already paid the taxes to have a state sponsored dept of forestry.

Why shouldnt they be rescued?

Thats just retarded thinking. Add a law because the state didnt handle the money right?

No offense but your conclusions are way off base. We already pay significant amounts of money in taxation- in fact our state taxes are in the top 4 if not 1.

The permit to climb is pretty significant as well. Where is that money going?

[Skud]

It was kind of a joke

We already paid the taxes to have a state sponsored dept of forestry.

Why shouldnt they be rescued?

Thats just retarded thinking. Add a law because the state didnt handle the money right?

No offense but your conclusions are way off base. We already pay significant amounts of money in taxation- in fact our state taxes are in the top 4 if not 1.

The permit to climb is pretty significant as well. Where is that money going?

...about the tax increase.

As far as the rescue: I'm saying that when they go into an area when avalanche conditions are high (dumb, to say the least [I won't use "retarded", as that is offensive to a great many people]), that would probably go against the advice of the forest service or any other reasonable entity...which leads to my conclusion that they should not expect the people who know better than to go out in such conditions to go out there and try to save their sorry behinds. It's kind of like the ice fisherman in Lake Erie last month who made a bridge with pallets to a mile long ice island that shortly afterwards broke away: million dollar rescue of 150 geniuses that Darwin would certainly have said are slowing down progress anyway!

P.S. at least make them take out one of those million dollar insurance policies, so it is they who foot the bill (and stimulate the economy) and not others.

[lady-MGS]

I always thought that if you had to be rescued like that, you had to pay for it. I mean like if you were mountain climbing and got lost and then they had to look for you. Maybe depending on the state or whatever.

Think about it, if your driving down a country road that is over grown w/ weeds and such and the bottom of your car gets to hot and it starts a fire. You are liable.

[Hammy]

you do.

instead of the 10k per hour the helicopter runs, you pay about $500 an hour for the rescue and then you can arbitrate it down to simply $500 bucks.

[{CLR}geneSW]

In Arizona there is a "stupid motorist law" which states that if a person tries to cross a flooded street and is swept away thus requiring rescue, they will foot the bill because they made the choice to cross a flooded street instead of finding an alternate route.

[mapes]

you do.

instead of the 10k per hour the helicopter runs, you pay about $500 an hour for the rescue and then you can arbitrate it down to simply $500 bucks.

Yeah you are charged for the rescue I'm not familiar with the costs though. I can ask my bro who worked SAR in Yosemite years ago. One thing I do know is that if a helo comes to pluck you off the mountain kiss your gear goodbye...cause they make you drop it. eeeek there goes your gear if your 5 pitches up.