Rescued skiers will pay state

[Greg]

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050829/NEWS/508290374/1002

 

[dmc]

I would refused to be rescued - unless I was hurt..

Otherwise - I'd just tell them to go away..

 

[thetrailboss]

I would refused to be rescued - unless I was hurt..

Otherwise - I'd just tell them to go away..

You'd probably still have to pay.

I did hear that on the news this AM...will read the article later and get back to y'all.

 

[dmc]

I would refused to be rescued - unless I was hurt..

Otherwise - I'd just tell them to go away..

You' probably still have to pay.

I did hear that on the news this AM...will read the article later and get back to y'all.

F that..
If I got gear and skills - and don't want to be rescued...
I'm not goin or paying..

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility. If someone chooses to go out of bounds I think they should be allowed to do so. However, if the person needs to be rescued I see no reason why local taxpayers should have to foot the bill for the cost of that rescue.

When I’ve skied in Europe there were entrances in some places to the off paiste where I had to sign a weaver stating I understood the risk and if I had to be rescued I would have to pay for the cost.

 

[thetrailboss]

OK, just read the article and some key points.

1. They all NEGOTIATED the payments and are paying substantially less than the $4,000 billed to each of them for rescue.

2. The money goes to the volunteer organizations who were in the rescue.

3. Law states that those who RECKLESSLY and WILLINGLY left ski area boundaries are held liable. The law leaves it up to the discretion of the authorities to decide who was acting recklessly and who left on accident. In this case, the one individual who is mentioned skied ONTO a closed trail and into the woods...violation of skier's safety code.

Some food for thought....we've had this discussion before...people need to realize that when they get lost other people risk their lives to rescue them.

 

[dmc]

.

3. Law states that those who RECKLESSLY and WILLINGLY left ski area boundaries are held liable.

So it's both - not one of the other?
What if you willingly leave a ski area but are not reckless?

What does reckless mean in this context? No lighter and granola?

 

[ctenidae]

I think this is similar to what we talked about last year- I'm glad to see it's up, in large part, to the rescue crew, and the money goes to the org that did the rescuing. I think those rescue guys (and girls) can be counted on to know the difference between idiocy and unlucky.

 

[thetrailboss]

.

3. Law states that those who RECKLESSLY and WILLINGLY left ski area boundaries are held liable.

So it's both - not one of the other?
What if you willingly leave a ski area but are not reckless?

What does reckless mean in this context? No lighter and granola?

I guess this is left to the discretion of the rescuers/state police.

 

[dmc]

.

3. Law states that those who RECKLESSLY and WILLINGLY left ski area boundaries are held liable.

So it's both - not one of the other?
What if you willingly leave a ski area but are not reckless?

What does reckless mean in this context? No lighter and granola?

I guess this is left to the discretion of the rescuers/state police.

Thats what scares me... A little too subjective..

I'm curious what their criteria for making people pay is..

 

[ctenidae]

As I recall, the rescuers have always had some discretion, it's just official now. From the examples we'd talked about before, IIRC, we agreed with the decisions the rescuers made. It is subjective, no doubt, but I'd rather go with the subjective opinion of professionals than the ironclad no-questions opinion of legislators who have never been in the woods.

 

[SkiDog]

im guessing they assess each instance as it comes down.

I agree that this give the "authorities" too much room to wiggle, but it seems they are more than happy to "settle" for a lesser amount to avoid court cases or non payment altogether...

M

 

[dmc]

As I recall, the rescuers have always had some discretion, it's just official now. From the examples we'd talked about before, IIRC, we agreed with the decisions the rescuers made. It is subjective, no doubt, but I'd rather go with the subjective opinion of professionals than the ironclad no-questions opinion of legislators who have never been in the woods.

Your assuming the rescuers are people that have been in the woods...
Sometimes they're just volunteer rescue guys that don't ski or hike the woods in winter.. They mainly respond to car wrecks and heart attacks - not search and rescue...
Plus - a lot of these guys live for this stuff - It's like their hobby... They can't wait to turn out for stuff... Gets them out of the house.

I'm just not comfortable with grey areas..

 

[dmc]

PLUS - what if they do a bad job - due to misscommunication or lack of experience..

I'm supposed to pay for that???

 

[ctenidae]

http://forums.alpinezone.com/viewtopic.php?t=2942&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rescue&start=15

Hate to say it, dmc, but you didn't have any problem with leaving it up to the rescuers in January...

Agreed, though, grey areas can cause problems, but if a decision has to be made, I'd rather it be made by someone who was on the scene, and has some experience.

 

[dmc]

http://forums.alpinezone.com/viewtopic.php?t=2942&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rescue&start=15

Hate to say it, dmc, but you didn't have any problem with leaving it up to the rescuers in January...

Agreed, though, grey areas can cause problems, but if a decision has to be made, I'd rather it be made by someone who was on the scene, and has some experience.

What - I can't change my mind for the sake of debate?

Cause I didn't get the memo from the moderators...
I'll check my emails...

 

[ctenidae]

Just busting on you a bit, d. Somebody's gotta keep you honest.

Your point's solid, though- but I'll still take subjectivity on this issue over hard rules.

 

[dmc]

Just busting on you a bit, d. Somebody's gotta keep you honest.

Your point's solid, though- but I'll still take subjectivity on this issue over hard rules.

You guys should know by now that i will always take the side thats less popular just for debate sake..

The reality of it - for me - is..
If I want to try and do the BC behind Cooopers at Killington - I'd go with someone.. I'd have a map and compass.. I'd get some good beta... And I'd be prepared to spend the night... food and water...
I'd also be on my splitboard so I could skin out..

I'd tell someone to expect me the next day at the worst...

The thought of having to shell out thousands of dollars at someones discretion disturbs me...

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

The reality of it - for me - is..
If I want to try and do the BC behind Cooopers at Killington - I'd go with someone.. I'd have a map and compass.. I'd get some good beta... And I'd be prepared to spend the night... food and water...
I'd also be on my splitboard so I could skin out..

I'd tell someone to expect me the next day at the worst...

The thought of having to shell out thousands of dollars at someones discretion disturbs me...

True, as it stands know the rescuers have no way of knowing if it's someone who is prepared for the BC or if it's a couple of knuckle heads who left on their own would die.

 

[Greg]

The reality of it - for me - is..
If I want to try and do the BC behind Cooopers at Killington - I'd go with someone.. I'd have a map and compass.. I'd get some good beta... And I'd be prepared to spend the night... food and water...
I'd also be on my splitboard so I could skin out..

I'd tell someone to expect me the next day at the worst...

The thought of having to shell out thousands of dollars at someones discretion disturbs me...

So a question for you. Say you do get "lost" and need to spend the night. If a rescue team happened upon you at 7 AM the next morning, after a night out in 20 below conditions, would you accept their help to get out (knowing the possibility of some sort of fine)?