[Paddlewise] Who picks up the rescue tab

A jurisdiction's attitude towards paying for rescue seems to reflect the 
economics and traditions of the jurisdiction. In other words, if a nation or 
state or province feels that rescuing people who engage in risky (or at 
least behaviour perceived as risky) behaviour will be good for business they 
will do it. If not, they usually won't unless some tradition or past 
practice supports it.

We should not expect a poor nation to spend a lot of effort and money to 
rescue wealthy North American tourists for free. On the other hand, where 
the economics of the matter justify rescues (say, for example,  rescuing 
skiers in avalanch country in British Columbia) the expenditure makes some 
sense. They want skiers to come to those areas and drop bundles of money so 
why not pay provide rescues if it draws more bucks to the area.

In some countries they have a tradition of rescuing people in danger at sea. 
Economics may foce them to change policies as time goes on and the number of 
stupid, careless, or excessively daring people increases. We should not 
confuse tradition with obligation. Many of these traditions formed at a time 
when most of the people on the sea worked there. Rescues made good economic 
as well as civic sense.

But we should use caution in appling the circumstances surrounding one 
activity to all activities. For example, rescuing people in car accidents. 
Society provides the roads and excersizes control over that use (to varying 
extents) and frequently charges a fee in the form of taxation for that use. 
This creates a strong connection between the user and provider in the form 
of expectations. So much so that some people sue society (the government) 
when they perceive it has failed in its role. Governments don't supply the 
sea although they do excersize some control over its use in coastal waters. 
Many paddlers would rise up in indignation if governments required a license 
to paddle (do any of you remember this topic dicsussed here!!!!). I suspect 
many who would resent this intrusion into their "rights" also would object 
if government failed to rescue them for free.

Of such inconsistencies are our lives composed.

As for myself, I refuse and always have refused to take cell phones, EPIRBs 
or any other device for calling for rescue. I prefer knowing that my 
survival depends upon my own abilities not society. I resent the intrusions 
of society on my life as it is and don't need more when I try to escape. 
Should everyone do  likewise? Not if they don't want to. Should I pay for 
rescuing others who have a different philosophy? Sometimes. I prefer to let 
those who supply rescue services decide who pays and who doesn't. I imagine 
they get pretty good at recognising stupidity. Unfortunately government 
agencies are shackled by rules and regulations born out of our fears that 
they may make a mistake and an unrealistic expectation of perfection in 
government services. In response to this irrational expectation governmental 
agencies tend towards rigid rules and regulations that do not always fit 
circumstances. "We don't provide that service" works better than, 'We made a 
mistake".

Now that you have read this ignore it. It is just my opinion. If you don't 
agree don't bother arguing with me I won't change my mind. :)

Cheers

John Winters
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************