I know that in the past, people being rescued had to pay the costs for the
rescue. I don't know if this is still the case, but if so it doesn't impact
us
taxpayers.
- Craig
...... Original Message .......
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:17:14 -0700 Mark P.Brada <mpbrada@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The flip side of the argument being forwarded by Richard and Alex is
>this: if you decided to go hiking at midnight and end up hopeless
>lost, or if you decide to go camping without reading the weather report
>and you end up trapped in the Sierra in a snowstorm (remember...last
>week?), or whatever idiotic stunt you decide to try, it will be the
>same said California taxpayers who will come to your rescue to bail you
>out. Flying helicopters to look for lost or stranded hikers is
>expensive, and every penny of that expense falls to the taxpayers. In
>my opinion, it seems like a good fiscal policy for the park to limit
>access at certain times, etc., in order to prevent the inevitable cost
>to the taxpayers. Now, I understand that most astronomers are not
>likely to get themselves into trouble, which is why, in the past there
>has been a variance to the park's policies (I think--here I'm getting a
>bit out of my league). Generally speaking, however, if there is any
>chance for someone to do something idiotic, no matter how small that
>chance is, they will always do it. So the question seems to be one of
>financial responsibility.
>
>Now I won't suggest that some of the regulations posited in this state
>aren't over the top, but we should all keep in mind that, at least in
>my opinion, the regulations aren't there to protect us from ourselves,
>but to protect our wallets from the morons of the world who will insist
>on being rescued, etc.
>
>Of course this is only one small aspect of a more complex problem, but
>there you go.
>
>Mark
>
>On Oct 29, 2004, at 10:49 AM, Alexander Avtanski wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Usually I try to avoid posting on touchy subjects, but what Richard
>> said
>> is so close to what I think and feel that I cannot resist:
>>
>> Richard Ozer wrote:
>>
>>> [...] If I was in Alaska, I could
>>> drive into
>>> any of the state preserves at any time of day or night. If I was in
>>> Hawaii,
>>> I can drive into the Volcanic park at midnight. If I'm in the
>>> Sierras, the
>>> Yosemite gate is open all night long.
>>> [...]
>>
>> This was exactly my impression when I came to California more than 4
>> years ago. I come from Bulgaria, a former comunist country, and I can
>> compare what is here and what was there. Here in California we have
>> so much regulations, I couldn't believe it initially! It was kind of
>> a "cultural shock"! In the beginning, even the whole idea of having
>> rangers responsible for the park seemed absurd to me.
>>
>> OK, all those rules were established with good intent, but at some
>> point it feels too much. If I want to go to the mountain and do
>> something stupid, this is entirely my responsibility and I should be
>> free to do it. I may want to do night hiking, or watch for night
>> birds, or whatever; if I kill myself in the process, well, why the
>> park should be responsible? Why is not possible to put a sign
>> "Rangers off duty - enter at your own responsibility" and forget about
>> it? It is the same with the restrictions for minors - cannot do this,
>> cannot go there, etc. If a teenager is decided to obtain something,
>> the rules will not stop him. It should be parent's responsibility,
>> not state's.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong - California is a GREAT place to be. I love the
>> clean air, preserved nature, the open spaces, the low crime rate,
>> friendly people, the Sun, and the chance to have my own telescope.
>> The rules are easy to put up, especially when I can vent some steam
>> from time to time, just like now. :-)
Received on Fri Oct 29 12:00:30 2004