- Jan 15, 2018 at 7:55 am #3512505PedestrianBPL Member
An excellent read:
And his book is worth checking out:Jan 15, 2018 at 12:30 pm #3512507Jan 15, 2018 at 2:24 pm #3512516Kevin BBPL Member
@newmexikevLocale: Western New Mexico, USA
The issue reminds me of western rivers with permits and rules… (I’m in favor of them)
And while I might sometimes grumble about requirements for groovers, fire pans, first aid kit, repair kit, and a type III pfd (and the gall of having to be inspected before I launch), it would be nothing but selfish for me to think that those inconveniences are at all on par with the risk to SAR personnel and huge financial cost to society of aerial rescue, if the rules weren’t in place (think Wal-Mart inflatables loaded with bud light launching at Sand Island on the Juan… ive heard it didnt workout so well for some people when they hit the canyons back in the day and the beaches were disgusting)
So, no I don’t agree with the article at all.Jan 15, 2018 at 3:02 pm #3512522
Does not have to be a huge financial cost to society. In Rega’s case it’s a private non profit that receives voluntary contributions by 30+% of the population, receives no government help and does not charge for rescuing people. The citizens take responsibility for that freedom and want to contribute to have the rescue service in place. No one is forced to pay. Places where citizens decine to take personal responsibility will have more rules and regulations. It’s how it works.Jan 15, 2018 at 3:47 pm #3512533W I S N E R !BPL Member
I was involved in a fight concerning a local canyon here. So many people were getting rescued (and dying) that the decision was simply to close the canyon. SAR was operating at a huge deficit due to the high volume of rescues and said it was unsustainable. In all fairness, the volume of rescues was ridiculous.
So the canyon was closed.
We managed to work an agreement for technical canyoneers doing the canyon, a permit system. Free, but permits must be obtained in advance and a waiver must be signed. We’re on a first name basis with the permit issuer now. I guess you could consider it a “victory” given given the alternative was banishment.
By “closing” the canyon, people requiring rescue without permits can now be charged/fined for the rescue.
I think this is going to become more and more commonplace across this country, especially as numbers of “first timers” in the wilderness skyrockets.Jan 15, 2018 at 4:02 pm #3512534Jeffs ElevenBPL Member
Why cant they just not rescue people? If people knew they were on their own, theyd (hopefully) be more careful. Or not go…Jan 15, 2018 at 4:08 pm #3512536Ken ThompsonBPL Member
@hereLocale: Right there
The you’ve made your bed approach. Cold, simple, reality. The public hates that.Jan 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm #3512537Cameron MBPL Member
@cameronm-aka-backstrokeLocale: Los Angeles
Reading the article I had to laugh because the impulse to impose behavior rules is so very French. But the Mayor is correct that that area is certainly not wild.
I always assumed that the lack of signs National Parks is part of a larger strategy of litigation avoidance. Put up one sign, and you will be sued if you don’t put them up everywhere else. Ditto for taking out the old handrails on some of the old trails. There is one handrail coming down from Whitney, and some signs exist where morons chronically slip and die around waterfalls, but that’s about it. That one sign at the entrance of a trail in Glacier about bears is the way to go: ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK.Jan 15, 2018 at 9:37 pm #3512623Ralph BurgessBPL Member
The problem of liability for injury or death in the litiguous U.S. is easily resolved if the political will is there to make people take responsibility for their own behavior in the wilderness. The default position (through Common Law, not the Constitution) is that of Sovereign Immunity, which means that the government cannot be sued unless it consents to be sued. The federal government has chosen to waive this immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Congress could fairly easily amend this act to restore immunity or limited immunity to the NPS and USFS. There is no constitutional issue at stake.
I think the situation for the states is similar, it would in principle be straightforward to make state park authorities immune from prosecution, provided the political will is there to do so.Jan 15, 2018 at 10:15 pm #3512634
Thanks Ralph for laying this out for us ( or just me).Jan 15, 2018 at 10:27 pm #3512641Rex SandersBPL Member
@rexLocale: Central California Coast
Going back to the NYT op-ed: Too many errors of logic, fact, or argument. Hard to start a reasonable discussion from there.
I see a lot of gray around these issues, not black-and-white, with no simple, one-size-fits-all solutions. And like Kevin, I enjoyed river rafting for 20+ years despite an ever-increasing list of required equipment on some rivers.
— RexApr 16, 2018 at 8:07 pm #3530758IanBPL Member
“Sovereign Immunity, which means that the government cannot be sued unless it consents to be sued.“
I haven’t been sued but our agency and individuals in it get sued all the time. I’d love to simply choose not to get sued and I’m sure our chief counsel would love that option as well. At the very least it would save me $300 a year in liability insurance and another $750 in union dues.
edit to add repealing or modifying the federal tort act is an interesting proposition, but I don’t expect to see that in my lifetime.Apr 17, 2018 at 6:53 am #3530864Roger CaffinModerator
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
The interesting thing is that people die in the mountains in Europe quite regularly, but everyone accepts the idea that the risk is YOURS. The system works.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.