Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:59:11 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Those designated areas you speak of do not always include ski
slopes, etc. There are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of land
under the control of parks, that allow free range type activities.
Not at all restricted to a ski slope.

Let me ask you Mike. You've heard warnings about avalanches. But you
decide to go into those off areas anyway. Something happens and you
need rescue to get out. Do you bear any responsibility at all for
venturing into an area that you were warned could be dangerous?

You did something stupid. No law against that. Does anybody ever bear
any responsibility for being stupid?


Ahhh - you ask a completely different question here. I've said that I'm big
on personal responsibility, so my answer to your question is yes, I do
believe she bears responsibility. That said, what I've been saying is that
there are services in place that are already funded to aid in situations,
and because they exist for this reason, I don't fall into lock step with the
clamor that she should bear all of the costs - regardless of whether there
has even been a request issued for reimbursement. I would not argue that
she should have no responsibility to the cost, and in fact, I never have
argued that. What I've said is that there are organizations that are
already funded to provide SAR, and simply using those services does not
automatically constitute a requirement for compensation. There have been
voices here that have clamored for cost coverage, even in advance of any
such request from the providers. Most of those have been based on the
writer's belief in what is acceptable by their definition, and what is not.
I have been involved in SAR with organizations that never expected
compensation. For those who are uniformed to insist that this should be
paid for at all costs, clearly do not understand the world of SAR. There is
not always a cost associated with an effort.

Sunderland went sailing in the worst part of the season. Enough
experienced sailors advised against it to make her choice a rash
decision, but she went anyway. Does she bear any responsibility for
it?

We are not in disagreement on this point.


What she was doing was not a necessary part of living life. It was a
choice she make to get a thrill at the very least, and make herself
famous at best. And yet, here you are trying to convince me she
doesn't bear a shred of responsibility??? You'd have a better chance
of convincing me that Gates is my long lost brother and he wants to
give me several billion dollars.

Most SAR efforts are associated with non life essential endeavors. It's the
nature of things. I don't want you to misinterpret my arguments in such a
way as to believe I see no responsibility on her part. But then again -
almost all SAR has personal responsibility associated with it. If we draw
the line at life essential activities, then the vast majority of SARs will
bill individuals. That may not be a bad thing in the end, but it is a very
different thing than what exists now. It may not be the best thing either,
since these organizations are funded by tax money already paid by those who
receive the service. I just do not believe this kind of thing is a clear
cut issue.

--

-Mike-