It is my understanding that a vast majority of the Mt. Hood rescue effort was comprised of volunteers. When they factor in the cost of say helicoptors they exponential increase the cost...but that equipment costs taxpayor's money whether it sits on the ground or not, manpower is the biggest variable cost and that was mostly free.

Mr. Wondering

p.s.- Extreme mountain climbing >>> Thinning out the herd

Hi Todd.

I think public money should be spent to a point. I don't see how this can work but if it could be determined ahead of time how well prepared these hikers were we'd know how much rescue effort to put in.

I suppose I liken this kind of situation the insurance claims. If a person puts their ladder up against electric wires with the base of the ladder in cow poop, what is the liability of the insurance company? We all end up paying for the stupidity of others & it would be nice to think there is a level of personal responsibility in cases like this.

Should we look for those that need rescuing from themselves? Yes, to a point & they get the bill.

It's pretty obvious that Verizon should foot the bill. I'm not a techie, but spent a lot of time reading about how a $50. phone could launch such a huge effort, and pinpoint a location at the 10,000 ft level.

If I ever go mountain climbing, I'm gonna buy that phone.

B...I am a little confused...OW is D but is living together with ex...and ex is dating? ...and everybody is OK with that arrangement, even temporarily? ....is it because of the kids? ...the house? what's up? ...I must be from the stone age!



I agree, B...definitely worth the investment!

You've obviously never worked for the government.

Luna - I'm confused too. OW and her husband were married living with their 12 year old daughter. OW and my ex had an affair and lived together for 3 years.

Now, everyone is divorced, and the affair is over. OW is back living with her ex, who is dating my friend. And I'm still waiting for the bank to find my money.

I do believe public money should be spent - to a point. We all need to be protected from our own stupidity at times. But from this side of the world, what I see at times is things like rescues that simply go way over the top. What would have normally happened in that situation if the media had not gotten hold of it? It is one of the lead items on almost every world news service. Then it becomes a viscious circle. More money is spent because of the public scrutiny. What control, if any, is in place to monitor spending? Who was that girl who faked her kidnapping so she could avoid getting married not so long ago? I was amazed at how they calculated the cost of the search. They obviously DO work for the government. But why was so much money spent? Why did the law enforcement people simply follow their own procedures? Because there was nobody watching over them to protect THEM from THEIR own stupidity.

I get Reality TV. Rescues shows are common on it. I am amazed at how much money I see spent rescuing a dog or a cat. I like dogs and cats but there is a point where too much is too much. I have no statistics to back this up but I am willing to bet that the USA spends far more on a cost basis than any other country in rescue work. Good for them if they can afford it. But they shouldn't complain about it afterward.

Book: 'The Power of Your Subconscious Mind', Dr. Joseph Murphy. Interesting.

Have you seen 'The Secret' DVD or read the book. A friend brought it over for us to watch. It goes along with your positive frame of mind you've been living.

I wish you all the best.

BigK, that human life is worth saving is a given. The question is: should public money be used?



Pio, I don't think public money should be spent to put out my house fire. I see the rightful province of the government reserved to two areas: national defense and a judicial system.



This is a misnomer. If this were true, the Iraq war would be free. After all, we still have to pay salaries, fly Black Hawks, furnish M16 rounds for training, etc. Economists call it an opportunity cost and it is very real. Know how much fuel a Chinook drinks?



Nams, I discussed this with a friend of mine. He agreed that public money should not be used in this instance. He went one step further. He thinks that climbers should not be allowed on the mountain if weather conditions are not favorable. Furthermore, they must register with a ranger and have a rescue contingency plan agreed to with a private rescuer. I disagree. I think we should have the liberty to scale the mountain and the stupidity to do it in December if we like. And, yes, while I recommend contracting with a private rescue service, the choice belongs to the individual. They just have to ask themselves one question: Do you feel lucky? I think we should be free to do anything so long as it does not mitigate the life, liberty or property of another.



Two points: If it is true that we all need to be protected from our own stupidity, why should the government be the protector? Second, why not let Darwin do his good work? Darwin was hard at work on Mt. Hood. His entire job is to improve the species. The slow and sick zebras get slaughtered. No difference with humans.

Quote

"I recommend contracting with a private rescue service, the choice belongs to the individual."

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I like this idea Todd. Is this something a hiker would be required to sign on to before hiking & how would that be, or would that need to be, regulated?

Perhaps a policy should be posted on all public lands saying you will be responsible for the cost of rescue should that become necessary.

Under my approach, a hiker would not be required to register or seek permission. Nor when the hiker be required to arrange a rescue service beforehand, just in case. Totally up to the individual. If something goes wrong and a rescue service was not contracted with, well, let's just say Darwin is hard at work.

Now, if other climbers or outdoor enthusiasists volunteer to rescue the hikers or climbers, fine. Volunteerism is great. Not spending the money the government took from me by force however.

Darwin should be allowed to do his work. It is not the government's job to protect us against ourselves.

EXACTLY!!!!! Thank you!

BTW, the fuel is free. The Kuwaitis are more than happy to provide it.

I have to admit that there are some costs associated to the war. First, the USA pays Germany a lot of money to effectively charter all their Lufthansa flights (full fare) out of Kuwait rather than use military transport. I don't know how much they pay Russia and France but it must be significant. And let's not forget KBR. That is the true cost of the war and probably really is in the billions.

Todd,

Your approach sounds complicated - but as long as it includes "no helmet laws" for motorcycles, I'm in.

Why would you want to ride without a helmet? Death wish, superhero delusion, rebel? Just curious...do you use your seatbelt when driving/riding in a vehicle? Why would you not take an added measure proven to provide additional safety and prevent unnecessary complications...helmet is to motorcycle like condom is to...

Sorry, I just don't get it.

Looks like I've gone off the deep end huh? It's just the medic in me...once you've seen a few heads crushed like pumpkins then you may join me...or not

Pio...I can never read your whit, sarcasm, seriousness...were you serious about the helmet????

I hate helmets. Despise them. Have no use for them. Refuse to live in a state that has helmet laws.

That's because I never show more than half of it.

2much - Pio is serious. My problem with the no helmet people is that after an accident, they often don't die. Sure, they can "Ride Free", but it is the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for lifetime care.

Pio,

I have it on good authority that we paid Frahn-say 100 Billion dollars to stay out of the war. Like yeah, we needed to pay them to stay out.

Pio,

If elected, one of my first acts would be to repeal motorcycle helmet laws and seatbeat laws. Don't get me wrong, I think people should wear seatbelts. Again, the government should not have the power to force us to do it.






True believer, but the solution is not to require helmets; the solution is to not use taxpayer's money to support them.

Hate to run it in the ground, but let Darwin do his work.