Since when do liberals think that rescue search and rescue costs of need to be collected?

[xultar]

Call me crazy but I thought that Liberals dug the wilderness and hiking and shit like that.
I thought that Liberals cared for their fellow man in distress.
Occasionally hikers (even Liberal hikers) will get in to trouble and maybe get hurt.
I thought we cared for our fellow man especially those who respect nature.

I don't know I must be a republican then...but usually they are the ones who don't care for their fellow man and want the cost for saving a life repaid.

Wow, so to make sure I don't get hurt while hiking and enjoying nature I'm gonna drive my SUV into the wilderness.

Is this fucking opposite day? Liberals against saving and rescuing hikers. Whodda thunk? :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. The extrme left libertarian

doesn't believe in this either. that is what you are coming across

[endarkenment]

40. huh?

This extreme left libertarian thinks that ideally there ought to be no cost for anything and that the people of the mt hood area would naturally volunteer their time and materials to rescue unfortunate people stuck on their mountains. (They might also of course encourage donations from folks touring the mountains to help equip rescue teams.)

You must be mixing us up with our bad cousins the right libertarians who think that everything ought to be privatized and metered and paid for including the air you breathe.

[northzax]

97. which is, of course

roughly what is happening. (the S+R people on the ground are all volunteers, even paying their own expenses. I know one of them, he's taken three vacation days so far (out of two weeks a year) and will stay until the work is done. Imagine spending your entire vacation for the year doing this.

I am hopeful his employer will see the light on this one.

[endarkenment]

106. Indeed. This certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism.

And to be fair to my rightwing cousins, they would as well do whatever they could to help these unfortunate people without concern for the cost involved. It is basic human nature, we are social animals.

[bryant69]

2. Well I think it's folly to pretend that liberals think a certain way

A few moments on this board made up of liberals reveals that there are liberals all over the place.

I can see both sides on this one - those hikers are taking their lives in their hands when they choose to go to certain places at certain times - nobody forced a hiker up on that mountain. On the other hand, isn't the time to wonder about those issues after we rescue people in danger - when a kid falls in the swimming pool, first you save the kid, and then you talk about pool safety.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[nini]

22. I'm with you... I can see both sides of this issue

Even if we think someone is an idiot for going up there this time of year, I don't think we shouldn't try and rescue them if things go wrong.

My son was billed for paramedic services after a car accident. I would assume the same thing will happen in this case.

I'd rather my tax dollars save hikers that made a mistake than blow up Iraqi kids.

[kestrel91316]

54. The searchers are volunteers, I think.

Rank and file firemen/EMS folks aren't up on that mountain. CLIMBERS who VOLUNTEER for S&R are.........

[BoneDaddy]

107. Yes

but the foundation, the core of what "liberalism" is one of generosity of resources, opportunity and most importantly, the heart.

Although we have a differing of how these things work out and who may be more appropriate in doing that, the center is one of compassion for our fellow men and women.

So to sit around and mock the dead, most likely, shows that liberals can be hypocrites and phonies.

[KittyWampus]

149. I think you miss the issue of personal responsibility.

[BoneDaddy]

150. What are you

a republican?

[NVMojo]

3. what the hell are you talking about?

That whole Mt. Hood area should be restricted this time of the year due to potentially treacherous weather, if that is what you are talking about.

I can't even begin to imagine the cost of the recent search and rescue effort.

[LostinVA]

108. This is actually one of the safest times to climb

It's much more dangerous at other times of the year.

It appears the experienced climbers had bad luck. The cost of the rescue mission is something that shouldn't even be mentioned. Only the lives of the climbers should eb a concern.

[northzax]

121. yes, you can't

cause it isn't that much in excess of what would be spent by, say, the national guard, on a daily training basis anyway.

[Connie_Corleone]

4. Just don't hike in the dead of winter.

And have a GPS with ya. You'll be alright.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


That better??????????

[xultar]

7. I don't think that was their problem. One of the guys got hurt and things

went down hill from there.

[Kingshakabobo]

14. Silly me. I thought it was possible to get stranded.....

......in the wilderness even WITH GPS ........and/or in summer/spring/fall.

:crazy:

[xultar]

26. Nope apparently you can only get lost in the woods during the winter.

Whodda thunk?

[Connie_Corleone]

37. It was just a joke. Geez.

[xultar]

45. Sorry, I didn't get the joke. Some of the things people are saying make

me wonder around here.

[seemunkee]

23. GPS are not magical devices

Who is it that you want in charge of giving approval to any wlderness trip? Should I check with you next time I want to go out to backcountry? Is Nov OK? What about Early March?

[Connie_Corleone]

36. It was a FUCKIN' JOKE!

I guess I have to add a sarcasm icon next time. Damn.

[kestrel91316]

57. They aren't "hikers", BTW. They are serious climbers,

aka mountaineers.

Big difference.

[Connie_Corleone]

59. OP used the word hikers. Just responding to the OP.

[neverforget]

5. I don't know why people have become so callous and uncaring

lately, but it seems to be the common theme today. People are missing? how much money will cost to find them? It's all about money in today's world. I'd rather have my tax money go to search and rescue than to Halliburton. At least with the SAR, you know you are helping someone or someone's family.

[phusion]

12. Thanks for the voice of reason...

I know, what the hell is going on here lately?

[kestrel91316]

60. This is one more way the trolls come out of the woodwork.

There are a number of folks who I have had some concern about for a while on DU, and now they rear their ugly heads and sound like RW nuts and Libertarians. Bet they are, and forgot where they were posting. Or maybe the RNC forgot to send their checks and they are unhappy.

You know the ones. It's all about laying blame and finding fault and seeing that victims are punished or made to pay, because MONEY is the most important thing.

[xultar]

17. AMEN!!!

[LostinVA]

109. Thank you -- excellent post

[BOSSHOG]

6. Not me

Search and Rescue is part of the mission of the National Guard. The National Guard is funded by taxpayers. I'll go out on a limb here and assume the climbers were taxpayers, therefore they are paying for the service. Even if they weren't paying taxes, the service is still available to all citizens and should be used accordingly. I think the conservative response would be fuck em let em freeze to death. I don't share that perspective, but the again I'm just an insane liberal.

[kestrel91316]

63. Sierra Madre S&R (the big one here in So Cal) is all

volunteer, IIRC. Local CLIMBERS volunteer because THEY are best qualified to do the job.

Funny, that.

[BOSSHOG]

69. God Bless Em!

Humans can often be awesome.

[Lasher]

134. Volunteer organizations need money too.

I figure it's pretty expensive to keep a helicopter in the air for an hour. Just sayin'.

Our volunteer fire department, bless 'em, was always needing more money than they were getting so we passed an excess tax levy in our county. Now everybody pays their fair share and the firemen spend more time training instead of having hot dog sales and the like. We've done the same with our county Ambulance authority, which still bills insurance companies but does not take any money from individuals. We think it's a mighty fine setup.

[itsmesgd]

8. taxes go for police and fire departments too...

you don't get a refund if you dont have to call the fire department in one year. It's the responsibility of living in an organized society.

[treestar]

33. Still, those are normal risks of life

Everyone is at risk of fire, but only those who choose dangerous recreation are putting society to this expense.

If someone gets hurt parachuting out of an airplane for recreation, society shouldn't pay, the individual should. There is probably insurance on that, so why not this?

It's not just about the $$ either, it's just a discussion of the responsibility and where it falls, which can be up for discussion on any question.

[kestrel91316]

67. So should somebody who exceeds safe driving speeds in

rain or snow and gets in accident be made to pay for rescue from a car wreck????

Who decides if it wasn't safe to go that fast? Who gets to say "they should have been going 3 mph slower"?

It's a matter of personal judgement, and sometimes we judge wrong.

[ecstatic]

9. I'm not sure, but I'm also not sure that this was a case of respecting nature either

This is a side issue, but respect for nature means acknowledging that it can beat you.

[BobRossi]

10. Who held the gun to the hiker's heads?

So I should expect free help to get me out of any jam I may get myself into? They were not hiking in a local park, it was on top of Mt. fucking Hood fer Christ's sake!

[xultar]

15. So you don't expect anyone to help you if you fall and break your leg

on a trail in the Grand Canyon?

What?

[BobRossi]

18. That is correct!

Not if I go it alone and not pay a guide.

[kestrel91316]

70. Most mountaineers and even hikers would scoff at the suggestion

that they need a GUIDE every time they set foot on the woods, lol.

Now, the RW would LOVE it because they could make lots of money on no-bid contracts for "guides" and the cost would keep all the riff raff out of the woods so only the wealthy would go there.

[Squatch]

129. Even guides can get lost/hurt and require SAR

[kestrel91316]

158. Part of the no-bid contract would no doubt include a clause

providing for unlimited free S&R and medical care for THE GUIDE in the event of any emergency. And a nice pension if it resulted in disability.

[cwydro]

21. Excellent point.

How about those people with heart conditions who go on the dangerous rides at Disney???

Guess we should just let them croak too.

[treestar]

35. You're not that inacessible there

If it is a pre-tried trail the National Park Service knows it is there and people are on it. It won't cost society an unreasonable amount for one person; the National Park Service will tend to patrol that trail.

Let's face it, the more socialist a society is, the more people are going to complain about whoever costs more due to their own choices. Why would society want to take this on when there are children with medical problems, for instance? Money doesn't grow on trees.

In a capitalist society, individuals can take their own risks. We insist on individuals taking their own risks on basic health care in this country, and a liberal may think that wrong, but it doesn't mean the liberal can't draw the line somewhere.

[xultar]

39. Yes you are. You could fall onto a ledge that reqires a helicopter for a lift out.

Please.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

64. That's easy ...

If you need to get rescued from the Grand Canyon, there is a bill. The costs are posted, and it varies by vehicle (helecopter, vs "two mules and a ranger")

[xultar]

73. So you burn down your house...they have to rescue you and air lift to hospital..

So, before you buy a stove, furnace, fireplace, matches, electric wiring...they make you sign a form acknowledging the costs of rescuing your ass out of your home in case of an emergency you know what you owe. then you can weigh the true costs of purchasing the stove, furnace, fireplace, matches, electric wiring.

:rofl:

That is what you are saying?

[valerief]

84. Most people can live without extreme mountain climbing. Most people cannot

live without shelter and means to preserve and prepare their meals.

[Pithlet]

94. But the argument is it's their fault.

If we're talking responsibility, and making people pay for their choices because of personal responsibility, then there really is minimal difference between holding responsible the hiker that got caught unprepared, and the person who fell asleep while cooking or smoking, or lighting candles too close to the curtains. They all brought it on themselves. Smoking and candle lighting in particular aren't necessary risks, either. Charge them, and make people think twice before calling the fire department. If they had all been more responsible, there would have been no need to expend the money.

No one is saying personal responsibility doesn't exist. They're saying that factoring it into life/death decisions is wrong.

[valerief]

122. Yes, charge them. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

90. What house?

I replied to your question about getting rescued from a trail in the Grand Canyon. No house there, except for one used by a ranger.

You can pack in a stove, furnace, fireplace, whatever you want, but then you have to pack it out again.

[nini]

27. No one.. who put a gun to the head of someone hit by a drunk driver?

Should that person not get help because they were out on the road which allowed them to be hit be a drunk driver?


People make bad decisions - but I highly doubt they began this trip knowing the weather would turn on them etc..

Do we really want to live in a society that punishes bad choices with death over who the hell pays for helping them?

[Pithlet]

32. Should you expect help? Yes, you should.

You benefit just as much as everyone else from living in a society that values human life to the extent that it doesn't just leave people to die. You also pay your taxes, so try not to feel too bad if you actually do ever find yourself on the receiving end.

[Beelzebud]

146. Who stole your humanity?

[Little Wing]

11. Since the 'toughest mountain man' competition went online

isntead of wrestling trees out of the ground

[cwydro]

13. Middle class white guys

don't deserve to be rescued. Not sure if that covers us middle class white chicks that like to push the limits too....

At least that seems to be what I'm picking up around here lately...

[nini]

30. I wonder where plain ol' humanity is anymore

I can't believe some of the crap spewed around here lately. Sheesh..


:hi:

[xultar]

75. Funny in another thread some DUers advocating shooting dogs that

threaten and here they don't want to rescue people unless they pay for it. Crazy isn't it.

[TakesAVillage_People]

16. No one has claimed not to care

about the health and well being of the climbers. I thought the discussion was about the cost of the rescue efforts and subsequent other costs related to their purely recreational trek up the mountain.

[treestar]

38. There are some people who can't separate the two

As this issue brings out.

[TakesAVillage_People]

44. I hear you

:think:

[xultar]

47. Have you read some of the posts? People are calling them stupid

I don't get it.

Accidents can happen to anyone of us. I can't believe people would question the cost of rescuing someone. I don't get that.

[piedmont]

61. They do pay for the SAR in advance--with taxes...

please see my post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2940544&mesg_id=2940844

[xultar]

71. That is what I thought.

[kestrel91316]

72. Outdoor recreation is a big moneymaker in the US. If you

tell people they have to stay inside their homes and only go to Disneyland for "recreation", guess what? You'll have a hell of a fight on your hands.

Now go back to your cozy cubicle and comfy condo where you are SAFE from the nasty "natural environment".

[xultar]

74. So true!!!

[sandnsea]

155. Some sort of weird disconnect

It goes right back to the people who said that windsurfing and skiing were 'elite' sports. Wha??? I do not know who these people are that think that playing outside is 'elite'. You buy a piece of outdoor equipment instead of a sound system, so what. It doesn't take much to be out of range of the traditional ambulance run.

[jus_the_facts]

19. Perspective......

[xultar]

62. EXACTLY!!!

[TahitiNut]

20. "liberals"? Where?

:shrug: I don't care what they call themselves, that's not 'liberal'.

[Bobbie Jo]

24. I would rather finance 100 of these rescues.....

Than spend another dime on this criminal war.....

[xultar]

53. BRILLIANT!

[sui generis]

25. okay. you're crazy.

:P

Seriously, nobody is against saving anyone. But if you are going some place that is dangerous and that's going to put other people's lives at risk to rescue you, then you need to ante up or don't put your booty up on the mountain in a winter storm.

I've been in a mountaintop winter squall for two hours with a mere 80 mph winds, wearing a coat rated to -80 and proper equipment and I can tell you the coat manufacturer lied. I swear my balls were frozen to my thighs and we both had two inch thick crowns of ice and mild frostbite, right through our gloves. Now this was just a ski trip, back of Whistler, and the staff that came out to find us found us and lost us twice on the way back down, not to mention that they put their own lives at risk to do it. But they were paid to be there at a "resort", as opposed to safety staff out in the boonies who really need to be available to rescue people down at the base of the mountain when their cars run off the road during a flat tire or when their house or barn catches on fire out there or they can't get to a hospital and in labor, etc.

Those boys up there (and Brian Hall is a casual acquaintance of ours) know in advance that if they're gonna need rescuing it's gonna cost them, because they're paying for extra people to be there to rescue them. There's nothing wrong with that. If your house was on fire and every rescue person in the county was up on the mountain, rescuing people for free you'd be pretty ticked off. You'd be even more ticked off if those same rescue people died in an avalanche trying to recover a corpse while your house burned.

[xultar]

34. What about the fire department rescuing you from your burning kitchen?

What if you fall and break your leg in a forest preserve or park near your house? The ones outside Chicago are quite big and people may not hear you scream. Should you have to pay for that rescue or is that o.k with you?

I suppose you want the people in New Orleans to pay for their rescue also.


You can break your leg almost anywhere and get stuck beyond shouting distance.

[lectrobyte]

41. Some would argue taking on Mt. Hood in December is not a walk in the park.

[xultar]

43. Depends on the park.

[kestrel91316]

77. Taking on Mt. Hood in Dec is safer than doing same in,

for instance, May. Which is when a person with no common sense would think to do it. Late fall/early winter is when the snowpack is most stable.

[lectrobyte]

88. Thanks, I did not know that. It still seems risky, though,

but deep down, I'd rather see them be rescued.

[kestrel91316]

99. Of course it's risky, but there are no risk-free endeavors worth

doing. A good mountaineer is NOT a cowboy or showman. The whole point is to minimize risk through proper training and equipment and good decision making. In spite of this, sometimes you get in trouble. Sometimes that trouble is so serious it results in serious injury or even death. But the vast majority of hikers, backpackers, and mountaineers enjoy their craft in safety.

[piedmont]

100. 133 people killed in 100 years on Mt Hood. Over 40,000 permits to climb issued per year.

from this site:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/30/national/main510637.shtml

[northzax]

123. this particular route (through the Gullies) probably yes

but late December, not early December. If you want to climb the Timberline face, up through the silcox hut to the hogsback- better in May.

[northzax]

125. technically, you are correct

it is a National Forest, not a park, so it's a walk in the forest.

[sui generis]

85. everything must pass my approval

you are correct.

:P

If you intentionally place yourself in harms way and you are putting other people's lives at risk to come get you, then you should ante up.

I'm not saying don't rescue people who don't pay. That's not the same thing.

[VOX]

96. N.O. is a good analogy. Remember "If you're stupid enough to live in New Orleans...?"

That reprehensible meme floated by right-wing talking heads?

Same wrong-way line of thinking.

[kestrel91316]

76. I think there are restriction or some sort of insurance for rescue

requirement for climbing Denali (McKinley). It's a very dangerous place, and very expensive to rescue folks from.

Considering how MANY people climb on and around Mt Hood year-round, this is just one of the risks of tha type of activity. If it ever gets TOO expensive, the park service (I think this is in a national park) or forest service can make a rule about carrying rescue insurance like Denali.

[Kingshakabobo]

28. Good thing I drive a big 4 wheel drive gas guzzling SUV.....

I have less chance of getting stranded on a mountain road and have some so-called liberal jag-off say I deserved it.

Maybe I need a bunch of guns since we are headed toward "every man for himself."

[treestar]

29. Usually in need refers to the poor.

I would want to help those without food, clothing and shelter before those who are just on recreation. Talking about the $$ only, I think they would be liable for the costs of the rescue, but do the rescue.

Why should anyone go mountain climbing in winter and potentially cost society so much, when we have people who need basic medical care, IOW.

For instance, if the hikers are wealthy, why shouldn't they pay rather than society?

[Pithlet]

42. Why should we have to pay

for the firefighters who helped the person who fell asleep while their stove was on. Why should we pay for the people who fished out the driver who didn't think the water on the road looked all that deep? Why should we pay for the police who caught the mugger when the victim should have known better than to walk down that dark street at night? Why should we have to pay for any of that stuff? Then, when they're so underfunded because we didn't want to pay for any of that stuff, will it matter how much we scream for help when we finally need it ourselves and it isn't there, whether our predicament was our own fault or not?

Will all the money we'd save by only paying for the lost people we felt deserved it be worth it when we can no longer go hiking or mountain climbing ourselves because there's no one left to rescue us, no matter how knowledgeable and safe we are?

[xultar]

52. No, 'in need' means anyone rich or poor who needs something like...

He's in need of a blood transfusion.

He's in need of some mental help.

He's in need of medical attention.

'in need' does not exclusively mean the poor.

[mondo joe]

154. If they are wealthy, they are already paying through their taxes.

Do you suggest the fire department also include a Wealth Surcharge?

[DixieBlue]

157. We're talking about human beings here...

not commodities.

It's really, really disheartening to see so many DUers forgetting that every life is valuable. I know I'm a relative newbie around here and what I say has little weight, but it makes DUers look no better than the RW nutjob who style themselves "compassionate conservatives".

This whole blame game is sickening. Perhaps the climbers misjudged the situation ... but we shouldn't blame them for their deaths or the rescue efforts. Blaming the dead, or potentially dead, makes the blamers look like harpies.

All human life is of value. Don't people here talk about how monetary/class status should never stand in the way of getting help, services? If that's true for the poor that's true for the more affluent as well. It doesn't have to be a case of "this person is more deserving that that". They're deserving, period.

A reporter once asked Gandhi what he thought of western civilization. Gandhi's reply "I think it would be a good idea!"

A little compassion might be a good idea about now.

[TakesAVillage_People]

31. I could never be so damn liberal that

no matter WTF happens, no one has splainin' to do about his or her actions.

As much as it obviously painful to some, we ARE primarily responsible for our own actions and or inactions.

Is this what you call a liberal?

[Pithlet]

46. Well, lucky for the rest of us

there are people who are liberal enough.

[TakesAVillage_People]

49. Well,

good for you.

[nini]

51. yes, we are responsible for our actions - definitely

but if we do something stupid we shouldn't die because of it.


Also, I don't think anyone should risk their life to go into a dangerous situation to try to find them either.

They definitely should take the blame here and take responsibility. However, it appears they are paying the ultimate price for their stupid mistake.

[TakesAVillage_People]

55. With all due respect,

we are not discussing search and rescue efforts. This discussion I thought, was about accountability and responsibility.

And yes, AFTER the guys are hopefully rescued, we can discuss this with seriousness.

[nini]

68. huh? the subject line in the OP says 'search and rescue'

:shrug:


I agree with you on the responsibility issue.

[leftofthedial]

48. climbing Mt Hood in winter is foolish

and is an act of pure ego

liberal or not, the public should not be required to subsidize the narcissistic folly of ego maniacs.

[xultar]

50. So you're saying you can't break you leg climbing Mt. Hood in the summer and get stuck.

[leftofthedial]

58. I did not say that.

the relative risks of climbing in the summer versus the winter are not comparable.

[piedmont]

65. And you know this how? nt

[kestrel91316]

79. I went snow climbing in the Sierras in January. i have also done the same

in May.

It was much more dangerous conditions for climbing on those hot, sunny May days, believe me!!!!!!!!!!!!! The snow kept collapsing. I felt lucky to get off the mountain alive.

Late fall/early winter is the IDEAL time for snow climbs in North America (except Canada/AK).

[Pithlet]

56. I think on DU

most of it is a case of people who just haven't thought this issue out very much. On its face, it seems almost reasonable. It's their fault, they should pay the price. Who could argue that? The argument alone that it isn't very liberal probably won't sway them that much and just makes them defensive. And then there are the Libertarian types, and sorry to say you probably aren't going to sway them with any kind of argument. We'll just thank our lucky stars there aren't enough of them to be too effective, and let them be ;)

[Virginia Dare]

66. delete...

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. It's completely ridiculous: It's an uber-capitalist, uber-privatization position

Anyone espousing it on these boards has an utterly incoherent political philosophy. It is a Greed is Good, Gordon Gecko-ite notion that completely contradicts the basic principles of liberal philosophy. Rescue isn't a private operation. It is a social DUTY - performed regardless of whom is to be rescued, or under what circumstances, and withour regard for recompense. That is the very definition of a DUTY for any moral or political philosophy worth its salt. This is why capitalism has dispensed with the notion of "duty." It cannot be colonized by exchange value: you can never offer a duty for recompense.

Now, you can either say "We - as a society - have no duty to save the lives of mountaineers, or we provide a 'rescue service for a fee'" or you can say "We - as a society - have a duty to save anyone trapped whomsoever, and that without recompense." But you cannot mix and match those positions without utter incoherence.

[TygrBright]

80. May I take the liberty of a re-post on this?

>> The Real Cost of Living in a Conservative/Libertarian Society
Posted by TygrBright in General Discussion: Politics
Fri Aug 11th 2006, 01:31 AM
I’ve read a lot of threads/posts on DU lately that run something like this:

1. News article is posted describing dire consequences for ordinary citizens who undertake some investment or risk of modern American life.

2. Group A of DU readers comment on how terrible it is that people suffer so.

3. Group B of DU readers point out that the people in the article TOOK A RISK and it’s their own fault if they didn’t ‘do enough homework’ to know it was too risky, or were too heedless or greedy or otherwise culpable, and personal responsibility is an important and desirable characteristic of adult citizens.

4. A mixed bag of Group A readers and new (Group C) readers expresses umbrage at Group B for ‘blaming the victim’ or insufficiently understanding why people NEED to take those risks, etc.

5. The thread evolves into a discussion of responsibility vs. need, including reams of ‘Well, when *I* was in those peoples’ situation’ stories that illustrate either how the people in the article SHOULD have handled the situation, or how unavoidable such dire consequences can be based on various factors beyond the control of an otherwise reasonable and responsible person.

And it seems to me that we’re missing the point we should be discussing, which is, what types of risks, and to what degree, should a community attempt to shield its members from? And what are the consequences to the community of ‘over-shielding’ versus ‘under-shielding’ people from risks?<<

The rest of it can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2772305&mesg_id=2772305

opinionatedly,
Bright

[xultar]

86. I likes! Great discussion points.

[ninkasi]

153. I read it, and agree

I understand that one of the climbers had an injured arm, and that might have been the factor that lead to a complete disaster. I just can't accept, though, that society as a whole will base whether or not to rescue somebody should be based on whether "they should have known better,", or "hey, why should I have to pay for somebody else's problems?".

Look at the enormous amounts we taxpayers are already expected to pay to protect corporate interests overseas. We pay in both taxes, and in the lives of our children. As long as a society is expected to pay for big corporations to make ungodly amounts of money, I don't think we should balk at whatever our share of rescuing our fellow humans is.

As a country, we have become much more cynical, brutal, and angry. I was born during the FDR years, and I saw much of the progressive movement evolve. Since Reagan, we've changed, and the gap between rich and the rest of us has widened enormously. Because our tax money is so overused for military interventions in unnecessary wars, such as the one in Iraq, there is less to spend on social services. Everybody is feeling burdened, and it might be that thinking about how much is spent to rescue the climbers comes when some of us are facing financial hardships.

Let's not forget our common humanity, and become so callous that we begrudge helping each other when we're in need. I'd rather have my tax money used to save life, than to take it.

[piedmont]

102. If that's the kind of stuff you're into, you'd love the Guns forum...

Lots of arguments there boil down to society's right to curb individual freedom for some common good, and even whether said common good would be the result of said curb of freedom. Of course, we get that kind of discussion on the GD board when domestic spying comes up, and for some reason EVERYONE understandss that a Big-Brother government limiting its people's freedom for some illusory "common good" is a bad, bad thing.
There's a lot of authoritarians on DU who become libertarian when it comes to the actions of a party in power that they disagree with. Same can be said about republicans, too.

[dionysus]

81. I know some of the responses I've read make me sick.

n/t

[valerief]

82. This was not an accident. This was an avoidable risk. They didn't

have to do it. They could have figured out another way to test their endurance and strength without causing so much trouble for others.

If they wanted a challenge so badly, they could have worked on writing and producing a hit Broadway show instead of risking their lives and the lives of the people commissioned to track them down.

[mondo joe]

101. Kind of like women who have sex but then want an abortion. Avoidable

risk and all.

:eyes:

[valerief]

117. I don't see the risk of death involved with your flame. nt

[mondo joe]

118. Is death the only risk? What about risk of pregnancy?

People assume all sorts of risks.

Funny how some can't be judged but others can.

[valerief]

124. Death of the rescue team is the risk we're talking about in this thread. nt

[mondo joe]

133. Really? You mean the volunteers who love to do rescues?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/adventures/162...

Mountaineer Steve Rollins figures he has worked nearly 100 rescues on the icy heights of Oregon's 11,239-ft. Mount Hood. He has dropped by rope from helicopters near the peak using night vision, slogged through whiteouts and climbed into crevasses. Between gigs, the 29-year-old holds down a computer job with Nike. But like the other members of Portland Mountain Rescue, his lifesaving work is pro bono: "You could offer me a paycheck, but it wouldn't make the job any more rewarding."

[valerief]

136. No, the ones who don't love to do it. nt

[mondo joe]

138. Which ones are those?

Thank you.

[piedmont]

103. What probabilty of death is acceptable to you?

10%?
1%?
.1%?

just asking, no flame.

[valerief]

119. I know that if I get stuck on a remote mountain in a storm and hurt myself I'll probably die there.

That's a risk I wouldn't want to take. Now, it's dangerous winter weather and the mountain is remote. Those are the only factors I know. How does that calculate to a percentage you're looking for?

[northzax]

126. Mt Hood? remote?

it'sa 60 minute drive from downtowm Portland, you are in exurbs almost 45 miles of that. I could see it from my bedroom window in high school, and I lived in the city. not that remote.

of course, by definition, anytime someone can't get to you, you might as well be on the moon, so I guess that works.

[valerief]

127. I think the top is remote otherwise they'd be home by now. Duh.

I can see the moon, but it's pretty remote in my book.

[northzax]

128. I think they fell off a cliff

otherwise they'd be home by now. duh.

[valerief]

135. Your point escapes me. nt

[northzax]

142. it's not that it is remote

it is that they are (sadly, and unfortunately) most likely dead.

[WI_DEM]

83. I agree with your point, but I also should point out that many of the outdoors people I know

who love hiking and camping, ect are conservatives (though I like it too, and I'm a liberal).

[cobalt1999]

87. I love wilderness and hiking and shit like that.

I also want to know that there is a well funded professional search and rescue team available to me if the worst should happen. However, if I am in need of that service, I have no problem being getting a bill for it also.

In an ideal world with unlimited money, it'd be nice if everything were free and government provided. It's not an ideal world. Choices of funding will be made. I'd rather have a fully funded S&R service that relies on personal charges available to me than a poorly funded one that doesn't, or worse doesn't even exist. In the later cases, areas that might require S&R services will just become "off limits".

I want the best possible helicopters, searchers, and equipment out there in case I need it. I want night-vision goggles, infrared scopes, satellites, etc. and I'll be happy to pay should I ever require their use.

A conservative will say, we should not have those services at all....you're on your own.

***edited for the last not***

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Meh.

It's just flamebait, IMO.

They'll eat their words the next time it snows an inch and they put their SUV in a ditch.

[REP]

91. I'm With You

The climbers on Mt Hood seem to have done everything right - studied the route, planned, left plenty of information - and got caught by an injury and a very bad storm. Even if they were reckless morons, the first concern is saving them, not billing them.

edited to add: I have no idea why people climb mountains - personally, I think it's a terrible idea! But I'm acrophobic!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. They Don't. Don't Judge A Philosophy By The Exceptions Of Crazies, For They Are Low In Number. n/t

[xultar]

93. It is always the crazies that are the loudest.

[VOX]

95. Using the "no rescue because they were stupid," rule, the following people are out of luck:

-the kid who swam in the ocean even when the riptide signs were visible;
-the woman who walked through a known tough neighborhood at night because it was a short cut;
-the guy who tried to change his fan belt after a few beers;
-the teenagers who stood on the river levee to watch the storm runoff;
-the pedestrian who wanted to make the signal by sprinting across the street;
-the tourist who drove onto the freeway offramp;

And so forth. People of all economic strata, all ages and all races and creeds do foolish things every day. **WE ALL** do dumb things every day. Yes, there are degrees, but when it comes to deciding it in that manner, where does it stop?

Why should Democrats save the U.S. when half the country **knowingly** voted for * ?????

[xultar]

113. That last one is the key!

[0rganism]

98. kind of on a tangent... could we make some variant of ELTs available to all hikers?

I don't begrudge people their S&R services. Far from it, I think such should be entirely funded by the state -- those who are volunteering under current circumstances, I think, should be paid a stipend for their work, in lieu of the hourly pay they may be missing.

However I cannot help but wonder, could the equivalent cost of a single large-scale operation of the sort we see at Mt. Hood, or previously in southern Oregon, not be used to pay for a check-out system of GPS locaters, beacons, and/or spare rechargable cellphone batteries for those who don't already have their own? Not mandatory, not a requirement, just an optional check-out service for hikers and travelers unfamiliar with the area. Heck, it's not like you'd have problems getting them back; their entire purpose is self-revealing, and even if someone insisted on absconding with one, I'd still rather they had one than not.

I sure wouldn't mind ponying up for a prevention system for dangerous situations such as the one at Mt. Hood, if it would prevent a single person from losing his/her life. Some amount of hardware investment to assist rescuers in finding missing/stranded outdoors adventurers would not be misplaced. I don't know about you, but if I were climbing a mountain and it were not too heavy, I would not object to carrying such a device. Some kind of GPS-enabled beacon which also put out a cell-strength radio ping every minute or so would probably be very helpful in finding anyone who had it. It seems to me, we should be able to mass-produce something like that for less than $150 per unit.

[FlaGranny]

104. I haven't read the entire thread yet BUT,

everyone so far seems to be talking about expense. I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that if the conditions are bad enough to have put experienced climbers in danger, that any would-be rescuers are also at the same risk of injury or death?

I am of mixed feelings about this, but is it fair for these adventurers to put potential rescuers at risk so that they can have their dangerous adventures? There will always be volunteers for rescue parties. Perhaps extreme sports enthusiasts should be required to get a permit and come up with a bond for the cost of a possible rescue, in advance.

I can't see where it's right to not rescue people, but I also can't see the fairness in expecting others to pay, either with their taxes or their lives.

[piedmont]

105. Put on your galoshes Granny, and wade into the thread....

A lot of what you're thinking has been hashed and rehashed here (and on at least 2 other threads), with some really ugly sentiment from some folks.

[northzax]

131. GRanny- a brief explanation

of how Mountain Search and Rescue works in Oregon. First off, the first responders, the actual on the ground searchers are all volunteers, not even getting their expenses paid, from NGOs of climbers (in this case, Portland Mountain Rescue and Crag Rats) These are climbers, who do it to provide a safety net for themselves and others (kind of a 'there but for the grace of god' thing)

Helicopters and airplanes are provided mostly by the national guard's mountain division, which uses them as de facto training flights (what better training than landing a Chinook on a mountain top?) it's what they do, they find people in mountains and drop off supplies and soldiers to remote, mountainous locations. they are professionals.

Every single one of the volunteers can simply say "too dangerous, can't climb" and no one second guesses them.

[FlaGranny]

159. I know the rescuers can say it's too dangerous and not

go. But they DO volunteer and go, often, and in dangerous conditions, and they do put their lives at risk.

:-)

[GeorgeGist]

110. Whodda thunk...

that any liberal would expect personal responsibility from those in a position to exercise it?

[xultar]

112. It's not personal responsibility. It is about a society helping the people.

[gulfcoastliberal]

111. I'm a flaming liberal, but I'd still buy medevac insurance to pay the bills if something happened...

$60-70 for trip insurance isn't a lost to pay in case you get in trouble. BTW, it's the state, not the democratic party charging lost hikers.

[xultar]

116. Medevac insurance is different than search and rescue.

[Skinner]

114. I don't have a dog in this fight. But I'm not a big fan of "you're-not-a-real-liberal" threads.

I suppose the obvious point to make is this: *somebody* has to pay for the rescue.

I don't really see what's wrong -- or non-liberal -- with collecting a small fee from hikers to pay for the rescue that they might someday need.

What's so liberal about spending the taxes from the working poor to pay to rescue affluent mountain climbers? That doesn't seem particularly fair.

I dunno. Perhaps I'm missing the point here.

But, as I said... *somebody* has to pay.

:shrug:

[xultar]

115. I'm just asking. That's all. Putting up a mirror. I never thought that search and rescue

would be something that we'd advocate needs to be repaid. I thought we paid for stuff like this with our taxes anyway.

Furthermore caring for our fellow man is what I thought we were all about whether hiking, biking, or swimming.

We don't ask for people who build in wild fire zones to pay for the fire suppression efforts. Nor do we restrict them for living there.

Why now are we asking people to repay for search and rescue for hiking? What about New Orleans people should they have to repay for their search and rescue? It doesn't sound right to me.

Sorry you don't like my posts. I feel that sometimes people need to reflect on what they are saying. If someone repeats it aloud maybe it doesn't sound so sweet.

[Brewman_Jax]

139. Why are you picking on New Orleans?

Florida got hit 4 times in one year, and no one holds them to account. :shrug:

[xultar]

141. EXACTLY! Them too.

[Skinner]

148. Who says I don't like your posts?

All I've done is respond to one of them. :shrug:

It is true that sometimes people need to reflect on what they are saying. For example, you might want to reflect on the difference between people in New Orleans, who lost everything because they had the bad luck to live in the path of a hurricane, and mountain climbers, who actively put themselves in harm's way.

To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on whether mountain climbers should have to pay for their rescue. But I'm not a big fan of threads based on the premise that some members of this community are not real liberals. It seems to me that liberals can hold differing opinions on this.

[ProfessorGAC]

120. Perhaps The Same As Those That Think. . .

. . .that smoking should be banned because of the costs to society. Don't tell me you haven't seen the smoking ban threads in which that "reasoning" isn't mentioned nearly every time by someone or other. It's always one of the justifications.

Sure, there are others by folks for whom smoke is quite an irritant and they have a personal vested interest in not being exposed. But, the "burden on society" argument is used every single time. As far as i can tell, all those folks are liberals too!

Sort of depends whose ox is gored, i suppose.

(BTW: I'm a liberal and i don't dig "the wilderness and hiking and shit like that". I prefer life indoors and comfortable.)
The Professor

[xultar]

130. Are you kidding. I've never been camping in my life. I've never been to camp.

Unless you count Summer Book Camp held @ the local library.

I do however, respect those that do the surfing, hiking, mountain climbing, sailing, suba diving, motorcycling, base jumping ....all that shit.

I think it is cool as phuck. It just isn't for me.

[ProfessorGAC]

137. I Think We're Agreeing

I was just saying that i don't think it's a liberal thing to be into hiking. There are dumbass conservatives who hike and go camping. There are liberals, like you and me, who never do it. And, i don't think it's cool or uncool. It just is. If someone like camping, good for them, but that doesn't make me care about it! I don't see anything wrong with it, just don't care for it and don't care who does it or doesn't.

My point was that i think it was a rather silly litmus test thrown out in your OP. And it was just an add-on to my larger point, which i think anyway, addressed the question in that post. I just don't think that the sentiment in those posts about the mountain climbers is that different than stuff we see here nearly every day, especially in those smoking ban threads.


BTW: I went camping once! ONCE! I was 17 and went with a bunch of friends. I knew the first day that i WAS NEVER DOING THIS AGAIN! LOL! I sure aint' one for "roughin' it".
The Professor

[xultar]

144. Oh I agree with you. It was a silly litmus test. I knew that when I posted it.

I used to be a stand up comedian so when you read my post you have to take that into account.

[ProfessorGAC]

145. Consider It Accounted!

I didn't know that. You know i've performed over two thousand times in my life, but i just never thought i could stand there essentially naked and tell jokes. Don't have the shelter of the music. If you thought i was a tool in the band, at least you would have to admit i could play! If one is a tool as a stand-up, one is pretty much toast. You have a courage i lack.
The Professor

[WinkyDink]

132. I'm a flaming liberal, too. But the costs of risk-taking ought to be borne by the risk-takers.

Why can't we do what the Swiss do:
" Often professional services may work in co-operation with voluntary services. For instance, a professional helicopter rescue team may work with a volunteer mountain rescue team on the ground. Mountain rescue is often free, although in some parts of the world professional organisations may charge for their services. But there are also exceptions, e.g. Switzerland, where mountain rescue is highly expensive (some 2000 to 4000 USD) and will be charged to the patient." (Wikipedia)

My new DU mantra: If they were Missing Blonde Girls, what would DU'ers say?

[JNelson6563]

140. How about insurance?

Like High Risk Adventure insurance? Kinda like flight insurance.

I think it's fine for folks to go and climb treacherous mountains during snowstorm season. Have at it kids! And if anything happens to those crazy kids that made those foolish choices, I'm all for saving them. Search! Find them and save them! By all means.

When it comes to paying for it, that is where it gets a bit tricky. Frankly I can think of much better ways to spend the many thousands of dollars these search & rescue/recover efforts cost than that. The adventurers are willing to accept the physical risk posed by their activity, they should be willing to assume the financial risk as well.

Hungry people, homelessness, grossly underfunded schools, growing despair on many levels.......there is no end to the list of ways money can be better spent than on cleaning up the mess of a few who chose to participate in high risk adventurers.

If that means I don't pass someone's political purity test so be it.

Julie

[Norquist Nemesis]

143. Search and rescue first, then figure out the payments if necessary

I've pretty much stayed out of the 'discussion' threads on this so far. But, without pointing fingers, some of the things I've seen have shocked and turned my stomach.

It doesn't matter whether they are rich or poor, white or something else, Christian or something else, male or female, young, old, straight, gay, married, single, or aliens from Mars. They are in trouble and need help to survive.

Anyone remember how Katrina victims were in desperate need standing on rooftops not so long ago? How about little Jessica in the well? The Kim family? To me anyway, this isn't any different. The climbers need help today. We can sort out the costs and culpability later.

At this point, it's looking more and more like this is going to end in a total tragedy. It's just not in me to worry about a price tag when there are lives a stake.

[Swede]

147. Save those taxpayers dollars and spend them on something useful-Iraq.

I mean,where can you cut costs to come up with $4 billion a month.

[Schema Thing]

151. Let's face it, America has caught the mean and selfish virus

Like there is a moral choice NOT to go after the climbers.


Rescuers do make moral choices. Shut down the search in X weather or at X amount of light. But to not expend available resources, over money? Blech.

[bling bling]

156. And it appears to be chronic. n/t

[TriMetFan]

152. What about being Responsible Humans for their actions?

These 3 guys are/were to have been "experts" climbers. These men should have had Mountain Climbing Beacons. The Beacons only cost 5 big huge bucks to rent. That is equivalent to a meal at Burger King. So because there are Liberals that want people to be a little responsible for their actions that is wrong? No-one is saying not to save these men. But they should have know better for being "Experts". MT Hood is a mountain that has taken many lives and many people have gotten lost there. Again it doesn't cost a arm or a leg to rent a Beacon. From a Liberal Oregonian that says: Please; if you decided to climb MT. Hood, Please oh Please rent a Beacon. Its just a little extra insurance besides your cell phone. Do it for your families. I would not wat to be in the shoes of these families that have their guys up that mountain lost. Just thinking about the one death already if enough to make me sick. I feel sorry for these people and my heart goes out to them but again Mountain climbing is just a sport and like any other sport people should have the right equipment, like a Beacon. Just 5 bucks to rent one out.

:cry:

[lildreamer316]

160. They don't.

I've heard freepers do; though.
Whatever.

[sui generis]

161. well basically I have a problem being told I'm heartless

so someone here, a lot of someone's here can grandstand and sing kumbafucking ya and feel better about themselves.

Nobody stole my humanity (or anyone else's) - the biggest jab I see here at everyone who doesn't think we should have a frigging chocolate spa up there with 24/7 search and rescue combing the mountains.

It puts peoples lives at risk to go find people who voluntarily put their lives at risk. Let's start with that.

Owning some responsibility is not the same thing as lacking humanity and the people here who are making that absurd claim are just absurd. There. Now I feel better about my superiority.

[mondo joe]

162. I'd suggest the actual Oregon law is a nice balance on responsibility.

At least as I understand it: SAR efforts are provided at no cost unless climbers are found to have caused the SAR through their own negligence, in which case a fee capped at $500 is applied.