Should They Pay for Their Rescue?

[DawnCt1]

134 fishermen were stranded on an ice flow that broke away from land. One person, who fell into the frigid water died of a heart attack. The cost of the rescue is estimated to be $20,000. Some are calling for the fishermen to pay for the cost of their rescue. They broke no laws, they weren't trespassing, and they happened to have 'bad luck'. Most accidents are 'bad luck'. Should they have to pay for their resue. The sheriff said that it is unlikely that this group will be charged but going forward, there may be a change in that policy. What are your thoughts? Don't we have police, fire, rescue and the coast guard just for this purpose? Isn't this in part, where are tax dollars go? If every time someone had to pay government for their rescue, they may hesitate to call for help until it is too late. Paying for one's rescue, particularly when no laws were broken is ridiculous.

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/02/08/news/mj585157.txt

 

[DancingBear]

I agree these folks should not have to pay. It's a closer call for me for things like extreme skiers or rock climbers.

 

[Rebelmom67]

They went over cracked ice and they KNEW it was dangerous. I don't think they should be charged, but I do think they should have to wear a sign that says "I'M FREAKIN' STUPID" for a few years.

 

[perla75]

What a disgusting idea to consider that they should pay for their own rescue Don't we pay taxes that go toward police, fire, and other rescue workers??? In that sense, they have already paid for their rescue.

 

[mickeyboat]

I read that they put planks over the crack in the ice. They knew the ice had separated from the main ice, and went to the other side anyway.

Dumb dumb dumb.

Denae

 

[DawnCt1]

Everything is "dumb" in retrospect, but if they all got home for dinner, no one would have given it a thought. I think that there was an expectation, and clearly at this point, an unreasonable expectation, that the ice was thick enough. I can remember skating on town ponds and seeing water at the end with boards blocking that part of the pond but the rest of it deemed safe by "authorities". Perhaps this is something that they had done year after year, with the planks with no bad result, and this time, it didn't work out. It seems that some paid a very high price. They lost expensive equipment, snowmobiles, etc. Ouch.

 

[Piecey]

Thats stupid.

I pay a police fee every month because I live within city limits.

I thought that was the point of the fee that I paid??

 

[MarkBarbieri]

It's a good question. If you charge people for rescues, several benefits will occur. First, people will take fewer risks and thus need rescuing less often. Second, the costs of rescues will be apportioned more fairly to those that put themselves into risky situations. I've been told that they put this into practice in the Grand Canyon, charging large amounts for rescuing people unable to walk out of the canyon.

There are some obvious problems as well. First, someone might be "rescued" from a situation that they didn't need rescuing from. Imagine someone that floated onto the ice but had some pre-planned means to return (a foldup kayak with them, a boat arranged to pick them up later, etc). Another problem would be that some people, afraid of paying for a rescue might further endanger themselves by attempting to self-rescue.

In this case, I'd lean against making them pay. If this is a regular occurrence, I'd look for a way to fund similar rescues by taxing all ice fisherman.

 

[shortbun]

They went over cracked ice and they KNEW it was dangerous. I don't think they should be charged, but I do think they should have to wear a sign that says "I'M FREAKIN' STUPID" for a few years.

Exactly. All ice fisherman know when they 'cross the crack.' Should taxpayers have to pay for the intentional stupidity? I'm very sorry for the family of the man who died, it was senseless but he died doing something he loved and he knew the risks. As an Ohioan, I've known many who went across the crack. One friend floated away with his car. This was dumb, dumb as dirt.

 

[rabx5]

No, they should not have to pay for their own rescue.

That is just ridiculous IMO. This is why we have our fire dept, police dept., ect...

 

[DawnCt1]

Thats stupid.

I pay a police fee every month because I live within city limits.

I thought that was the point of the fee that I paid??

Well, apparently they plan to make a law for the future. Does that mean that the town/county/state will decide if the ice is safe before they officially "open it" to fishermen? Does that mean that if they decree it is safe and someone is injured/stranded, etc. that they will make the municipality subject to law suits?
Does it mean that it will NEVER be opened because we, as Americans can only engage in activities that are absolutely safe and without risk?

I think we have seen the results of that with watered down playgrounds and so many limitations that obesity is a problem in children. More government nanny-ism. Why pay taxes if you have to pay for services as well?

 

[Rock'n Robin]

Helicopters were called in from several jurisdictions, as far away as Ohio State. Who pays for these? I think I heard they cost $400 an hour or something. The area of ice covers two counties and several small communities. Are they supposed to pay Detroit and OSU for their helicopter use because some yahoos ignored the obvious so they could go fishing? I live in the area and I think these people should pay for all of the extras that were necessary, rather than having these sheriff's departments go into the red.
edited to add: This happens around here every single year--and every year the law enforcment agencies beg these people to watch the ice and be careful, that there IS no "safe" ice--maybe if someone, finally, got more than a "stern talking to", next year they would listen!
Robin M.

 

[crashbb]

I know that in the Grand Canyon, they WILL charge you for your rescue if it could have easily been prevented. For example, if you decide to hike to the bottom without bringing food or water and you need to be lifted out - you will be charged. If, on the other hand, you bring all the proper things/wear the proper boots, etc. and still slip and fall, you will not be charged.

We were warned of this fact when we went hiking.

I vote that they should be charged for the rescue.

 

[DancingBear]

I think we have seen the results of that with watered down playgrounds and so many limitations that obesity is a problem in children.

We have great playgrounds all around us. Getting rid of old metal and wood playgrounds isn't what's made kids fat.

 

[aprilgail2]

They should be charged a "stupid tax" for doing something they knew was dangerous- why should taxpayers have to pay for a few peoples stupidity?

 

[freckles and boo]

This should be a wake-up call. No, they shouldn't have to pay this time but in the future, if "ice warnings" are issued, there should be a rescue fee. Or perhaps an ice fishing license should be required with an insurance policy attached to it.

 

[Piecey]

We have great playgrounds all around us. Getting rid of old metal and wood playgrounds isn't what's made kids fat.

We don't.

The only city playground I can think of (other than school and park playgrounds, of course) is in a low-income area of the city.

It's a gorgeous playground, better than most of the local schools, and I'm not begrudging them that playground at all.

I just think it's pretty crappy that there isnt one anywhere in the nicer areas.

We just bought a house 4 blocks from the park, though.. so we'll go there.

Sorry. Not to go OT!

 

[DawnCt1]

We have great playgrounds all around us. Getting rid of old metal and wood playgrounds isn't what's made kids fat.

When I was a kid we had new playground equipment but I haven't seen any equipment like it in years. There were "merry go rounds" that kids could push and jump on. Apparently kids fell off and their parents sued. I haven't seen monkey bars in years, in which you could climb to the top and hang up side down. Schools are limiting recess in favor of more academics, which I think is counter productive.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I don't know. I'm torn on this one.

It really bothers me when people do stupid crap and then put rescue workers in danger when they try to help them.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Why pay taxes if you have to pay for services as well?

If we pay separately for services that we use, the overall tax rate can be lower. We use this concept with roads. We tax people based on their driving (indirectly via a gas tax) to pay for the roads that they use. We could just as easily drop the gasoline tax and raise the money from an income tax. Using a gas tax apportions ties the costs more closely to the benefits.

The same principal could apply here. If a reasonable means can be achieved to tie the cost of rescuing people from bad risks, we could put the costs on the risk takers. That would presumably cause people to more carefully assessing risks before taking them. It also seems fairer.

Helicopters were called in from several jurisdictions, as far away as Ohio State. Who pays for these? I think I heard they cost $400 an hour or something.

I'd be amazed to hear that a helicopter used in the rescue cost $400/hour. I would be surprised if it was less than $1,500 hour.