We're the government, and we're here to help!Originally Posted by Jim Adams
He should have stayed home, dropped out of school, quit his job and knocked up a 16 y/o chick....the government would have PAID him!We're the government, and we're here to help!
geek
On a different topic, I have another thread going about it as well....I called 911 for this kid on top of Franconia Ridge on 7/12/09....This was just sent to me as an update from one of the SAR folks via PM.
Hi- Two EMTs were dispatched immediately (one from NH Fish and Game and one from Pemi Valley Search and Rescue), followed by a SAR litter team of 18 people. I carried the litter up reaching Kyle on the Falling Waters Trail about 1.7 miles from the bottom. We carried him to his car, and his brothers drove him to the hospital. He was in relatively good shape by the time we got down to the Lafayette parking area, all things considered! I don't know any more than that.
Being the first person on the scene and asked to call 911 by his brothers, I did so while other hikers applied an ace bandage to stop the bleeding from his head wound. In this case...it was stupidity and negligence that caused his fall. By the way, the rock he fell off is easily accessible by the trail.
Feel free to comment...I watched as he fell and cracked his head open
This is what happened.
Note to self: When going to NH, don't tell anybody and don't sign into any logs.
I have to disagree.
First, thoughts of a fine might keep some people from going out at all, and that would lessen support for the trails and parks.
Second, thoughts of a fine might cost lives, in that someone in a situation might not call for help, even when they can, because they rationalize that it is not so serious, due to fear of paying a fine.
This whole line of thought is akin to saying that people might be more careful with fire if the fire department were to send a bill to anyone whose house caught on fire. It might be true, but even if it is true, it might still be bad public policy, not to mention just wrong.
If someone makes the willfull decision not to call for help, well that's pretty much THEIR decision.
And if worries about a possible fine keeps people at home, well so much the better. Areas such as the White Mountains are crowded enough already, and in truth, anyone that fearful about their trail smarts and preparedness level should probably forego their trip until they ARE better informed and more confident. The only folks who might re-act to legislation such as New Hampshire's by electing to stay at home are probably folks better off at home in the first place.
Fire departments are beginning to charge for their fire fighting services.
geek
The police should start to do so also, then.Fire departments are beginning to charge for their fire fighting services.
geek
Police are already paid. Most fire departments are volunteer....sounds stupid but alot of them here in Pa. are having trouble meetings costs since smoking was outlawed at bingo...starting to charge for firefighting to stay in the black.
geek
Kid is 17 - still a "child" according to the law. Parents called, they are legally responsible for him.
New Hampshire isn't the only state that recoups SAR costs and it isn't new. Here is a long quote from 2002 concerning Oregon.
When a Redmond man became stranded while trying to rappel into the steep Crooked River Gorge in the middle of a cold winter night three years ago, rescuers spent about four hours lowering him to safety.
Not only was the man unprepared, inappropriately dressed and packing only 250 feet of rope to reach the bottom of the 365-foot cliff, but authorities suspected he had also been drinking. The man jammed the descent ring on his rappelling gear and was left hanging about 100 feet from the canyon floor for about seven hours until rescuers could lower him to safety.
Search and rescue crews from Jefferson and Deschutes counties eased the man from his precarious position and slapped him with a charge of disorderly conduct.
But should he also have footed a portion of the bill for the cost of the rescue for disregard for his own safety and the danger he created for rescuers?
This case and many like it are times agencies could consider charging rescue subjects for a small portion of their services. A 4-year-old Oregon law gives search agencies the authority to charge subjects of search and rescues up to $500 a piece when "reasonable care" was not used and when "applicable laws were violated."
But in the vast majority of cases, the agencies do not send a bill.
The question of whether to send a bill to subjects of search and rescue missions when plain ignorance is displayed, when a lack of care is tossed out the window or when laws are broken is not as easy as it might seem.
Search and rescue officials maintain that regularly charging for their services would cause people to hesitate to call for help out of worry of being billed. Searchers fear such a delay would cause people to get themselves even deeper into life-threatening situations and make rescues more difficult and dangerous for crews.
But officials say the reimbursement law is a tool they will begin use in appropriate cases to recover lost taxpayer dollars and send a message to persons who place search and rescue personnel, themselves and others in danger.
While rescue units have a high sympathy threshold for the lost and unlucky, they are sometimes irked by the cases they encounter. A few examples:
• A search for three hikers caught in a snowstorm on Mount Hood cost taxpayers about $10,000 in March 1995. More than 100 people searched for the three college students, who in fact were well-equipped, warm and safe. The three waited the storm out in their tent playing cards. The hikers were not carrying a cellular-phone or radio locator unit. The incident prompted the 1995 reimbursement legislation.
• Local search crews responded to a call several years ago for a rockhound who was reported missing in the Horse Ridge area. Rescuers mobilized and a search was activated. Crews found out they were searching in vain - the man had not gone rock hunting, and in fact was not even in the state.
• In 1993 two adults drowned and three children were rescued after going over Dillon Falls on the Deschutes River near Bend. The inexperienced rafters went over the falls, rated as nearly impossible to navigate, despite a sign that warned of the danger ahead.
None of those cases resulted in a billing.
But in May 1996, Deschutes County became the first search and rescue agency to use Oregon's reimbursement law.
Rescuers spent two hours fishing two of five Portland-area men out of the rapids of Benham Falls on the Deschutes River. The party attempted to ride a class VI rapid despite warnings from bystanders and signs.
The men shared a $1,560 bill for the cost of the rescue.
Some experts agree with Oregon's law in principle, but say it is impractical to administer.
Georges Kleinbaum, state search and rescue coordinator with the Oregon State Police division of emergency management, says the reimbursement law was rushed into the Legislature in response to the 1995 search and rescue mission on Mount Hood and not supported by Oregon sheriffs.
"They were on the right track with wanting to be able to charge people, but I think the whole thing needed a little more work before they chiseled it in stone," said Terry Silbaugh, former coordinator of Deschutes County's unit.
Policies vary among public agencies routinely involved in search and rescue missions.
J.D. Swed, a representative of the National Association for Search and Rescue, said most states have some type of mechanism in place to seek recovery of .funds for missions where negligence or lack of care is shown.
For instance, in California agencies can seek up to $10,000 in a civil lawsuit for costs associated with search and, rescue. However, in such a case the search and rescue agency must prove "gross negligence," which is hard to do and has not been tested in court, according to Bill Fertig, a corporal with. the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department volunteer. services unit.
Swed, who is in charge of all search and rescue operations in Denali National Park in. Alaska, said National Park Service search and rescues all are funded by tax dollars. There is no provision to charge people,. although park service authorities do occasionally cite persons for disorderly conduct.
Other agencies' policies:
The U.S. Coast Guard goes after search and rescue costs when it receives "hoax calls" that result in a full-scale response, said Shelly Freier, a U.S. Coast Guard public relations spokeswoman. Such cases' could include a phony Mayday call or when flairs are launched for no emergency purpose.
• The U.S. Forest Service can only charge for damage done to government property, and not for any costs associated with rescue.
• Fire departments can, by state statute, recover costs other than patient care, such as personnel time and equipment, in cases of blatant disregard.
• Ski areas, such as Mount Bachelor, don't mess around when it comes to skiers and snowboarders who explore ungroomed snow. Kathy Degree, vice president of marketing at Mount Bachelor, said they charge a minimum of $1,000 an hour for each search, whether that search lasts an hour or 24 hours.
One non-governmental agency, Air Life of Oregon, bills non members for rescue services. The nonprofit organization, which provides air ambulance service to a 70,000 square mile area in Central and Eastern Oregon, is expensive if patients are not enrolled members.
Patients are only charged if they are actually transported..
The typical Air Life mission costs in excess of $5,000. Two airplanes and a helicopter are available to respond to the "worst of the worst," said Vern Bartley, Air Life of Oregon director.
Annual memberships at $45. for a family can ensure that Air Life and insurance providers will pick up the, bulk of the bill. About 20 percent of the calls Air Life responds involve enrolled members.
Search and rescue missions are not cheap, often stretching into the thousands of dollars. The major costs are calculated in staff time and equipment. those are actual costs that Oregon search and rescue agencies can seek.
Undoubtedly there could be more to this tale than encapsulated above.While rescue units have a high sympathy threshold for the lost and unlucky, they are sometimes irked by the cases they encounter. A few examples:
• A search for three hikers caught in a snowstorm on Mount Hood cost taxpayers about $10,000 in March 1995. More than 100 people searched for the three college students, who in fact were well-equipped, warm and safe. The three waited the storm out in their tent playing cards. The hikers were not carrying a cellular-phone or radio locator unit. The incident prompted the 1995 reimbursement legislation.
Even so, this summary supports the idea that we should be careful what we wish for.
According to the court system a 17 year old is an adult.
As I recall, somewhere south of Concord there's a toll booth on the interstate where the State of New Hampshire collects a toll of $0.75 or $1.00, it's been a while since I've driven through that area. Increase the toll by $0.10 and dedicate the extra revenue to SAR, volunteer rescue and medivac helecopter funding.
Almost everyone (resident and tourist) pays an additional nominal fee, and everyone (resident and tourist) potentially benefits from the additional services.
Seems like a better idea than randomly issuing massive fines to kids who can't pay and their parents who likely won't pay. It appears to me that the only people who'll make any money from this mess are the lawyers.
people who are fined for sexual assault are typically fined far less then $25,000.
Drunk Driving is PA fines only $300 for first offense. No one seems to get fined $25,000.
1st Offense
- Probation no longer than 6 months;
- $300 fine;
- Attend Alcohol Highway Safety School; and
- Comply with the Drug and Alcohol treatment requirements
2nd Offense
- Mandatory 5 days in jail, but may be up to 60 days;
- Fine between $300 and $2,500;
- Attend Alcohol Highway Safety School;
- Loss of License for 1 year;
- Ignition Interlock system in car for 1 year;
- Full Drug and Alcohol assessment
3rd Offense
- Mandatory 10 days in jail, but may be up to 2 years;
- Fine between $500 and $5,000;
- Loss of License for 1 year;
- Ignition Interlock system in car for 1 year;
- Full Drug and Alcohol assessment
Panzer
Fine a kid $25000.00 with full knowledge that there's no way he could possibly pay, then when he doesn't, have the the State attorney file for a judgement. Now the kid can't get a loan for college has trouble getting a car loan, can't get a mortgage, and has his pay garnished for the next 15 years. WELL DONE! We taught that Eagle Scout scumbag a lesson, let's see if he comes back for more.
Why not take a reasonable course: Fine the kid $500.00 (an amount he might reasonable be expected to afford). Require the kid to successfully complete an EMT or similar class at his expense. Require the kid to serve 200 hours of community service in NH related to SAR or public safety.
He's paid a price, learned a lesson and will probably be a better citizen. Isn't that the idea?
I'm having a bad week so sorry for being so harsh and I hope I don't offend but why not make everybody on welfare get a job and use that money for parks, recreation and SAR?
geek
This $25,000 is a bill to recover actual costs of the rescue, not a fine in the usual sense of the word. People who cause personal harm or property damage may be found criminally not guilty but lose huge civil suits. The standard from the revised SAR law is the difference between "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and just negligent. The example you used is a criminal act and doesn't apply here.Panzer1-"people who are fined for sexual assault are typically fined far less then $25,000....
I will stay away - it has absolutely NOTHING to do with my skills, everything to do with NH unfair and arbitrary law. That means I will not be buying any meals, gasoline, shuttles, hotels, etc. Drive tourism away and the state will loose.
Not a bad plan, although you'd have to really crunch the numbers...I assume the $1 toll would go up about 25% At least for that to work...I would still pay it, would not care about a quarter extra knowing, even though I am plenty experienced, that a SAR won't cost me 5 figures.
I honestly don't know...but are these cases even being deliberated by a jury or a conglomeration of ones peers of any kind? Or is it the director or SAR who is in charge of the budget sitting there with a stamp that says negligent on so far 1/3 of the cases put up for review?
I spent aprox. $3,000 this year in NH. Pretty average for me going up there for most of my short vacations, weekend hikes, and other things. As a whole, let's say I spend $3000 a year in NH over the next 15 years going to NH whenever I can, not to go shopping or avoid the Mass Sales tax...but just as an enthusiast of visiting the state.
If I stop going to NH because of this law, $45,000 in state revenue over the next 15 years is lost for sure because I can't risk getting charged some exorbinant amount for an SAR if I, or a family member needs it.
I've already decided to take the brother in law somewhere else next summer because even a 14 year old said... "That's a stupid law and it doesn't even make sense how much they are fining people"
Kid's can figure this **** out....
Posting Permissions
