Re: [Paddlewise] Billed for a Rescue

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote:

>
> Reading the article carefully, it sounds like a bad law.  The criteria on
> which a fine is based are vague and so broad I bet a good attorney could
> beat those fines.


I agree. The only way they could make this stick is to have a (prominent)
sign at the trailhead specifically requiring that hikers stay on the marked
trails or risk paying for any rescues. At trails where hikers must sign the
trail roster this would be especially effective.

>
> Mind, I am not opposed to the concept of fines, but would want them
> carefully applied.  Out of bounds skiers who willfully violate covenants to
> which they have agreed by buying a lift ticket at a controlled ski area, and
> who subsequently need a rescue, I could see the rationale for a fine.


Absolutely!!! This has gotten completely out of hand lately. Also snow
machine (and x/c skiers) who ignore avalanche warnings.

We paddlers are in total limbo on this.  There are no codified standards for
> safe paddling conduct on open waters.  Chart?  Not required.  VHF?  Not
> required.  Compass?  Ditto.  Paddle float?  Dry top?  Bracing skills? Yadda
> yadda yadda The list is endless.  How would a paddler know what constituted
> negligent behavior or conduct?


Well, we *do* have to carry a whistle.

>
> Compare our situation to that of power boaters who need a rescue due to
> their incompetence.


Are they requiring a "boater's safety" card in Oregon yet? They require one
in Washington now except that I'm exempt due to my age. Apparently I'm
automatically qualified just based on the date I was born. I believe that in
BC they require one regardless. But not for kayakers.


>  None of them are being fined for rescues in Oregon, despite the
> substantial number who require rescue resources.  How about New Hampshire
> ... the state featured in the article?  Bet not.  To illustrate how slippery
> this slope is, what about a family in an SUV who slide off an icy mountain
> road into a deep ravine, all surviving, but unable to get back up to the
> road?  Do they pay for a haulout?  Bet not.  Certainly, failure to operate a
> motor vehicle prudently is negligence ... and is codified in chapter and
> verse in law.


"Driving too fast for conditions" is the catch-all they use here to give
people tickets for sliding off the road in snow or ice. Or probably anything
else.

When I was involved in SAR (many years ago) we actually looked forward to
rescue situations that allowed us to mobilize.The "real thing" is (or was)
better than any training exercise to show where we were lacking. Like the
coordinator who decided that amateur radio operators were no longer needed
because they had cell phones now. They carefully recharged all the cell
phones before each drill but somehow forgot to know far enough in advance to
charge them up for the real thing. LOL

Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************