Reply to Expending large resources to rescue people from optional recreation

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Expending large resources to rescue people from optional recreation "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]My BF does search & rescue (including in a very dangerous mountain range where many people have died), he'd disagree.

First, you'd have to set criteria for who gets rescued and who doesn't, and that's extremely difficult to do.

Let's say a parent takes their child hiking in the dangerous mountains. Most people would agree the child should not be left to die because of the parent.

You would have to set an absurd amount of criteria for deciding who gets rescued and who doesn't. What's the cut-off temperature for hiking the Grand Canyon? The altitude for Mount Everest? How do you verify that person exceeded it? What of the weather forecast called for a mild, sunny day, but the temperature randomly spikes or a storm blows in?

At that point, you'd have SO much criteria and it would be so intensive to go through it, that would take more time and resources than just rescuing the person.

Second, when you base rescue services on vibes-based moral judgement, everyone becomes fair game. At that point, everyone can be denied help because you "should have known better". You were driving 5 miles over the speed limit and crashed? Sorry, no help for you, you should have known better. You eat dessert once a week? Sorry you got heart disease, but no help for you, you should have eaten a 100% clean diet.

Third, most SAR teams are volunteers. They *want* to help. It's fun for them. My BF is paid, but he loves it. And even tho my BF is paid, SAR is a small part of his job, and he is able to use his skills for other productive jobs, like helping law enforcement (which is actually most of what he does, the search & rescue operations are few and far between, even with us living in a dangerous area with mountains and intense heat). So he would be paid whether or not he does SAR.

Fourth, denying help doesn't really deter people. People who do dumb things already underestimate the danger and overestimate their skills. Denying rescue just leads to higher fatality rates, it's not a deterrence.

Fifth, once you have high fatality rates, you now have to go recover the bodies anyway. Money will have to go to that. Yes, they leave bodies on Mount Everest. But if someone dies on a hiking trail, you can't leave the body there. So the money now goes towards recovering bodies. Better for it to be spent rescuing people while alive.

Sixth, not rescuing people usually leads to a bigger mess. Families and friends try to go help. Other hikers try to go help. Now you have a bigger, messier, more dangerous rescue situation, and more bodies to recover, which costs more money.

Better options are to fine people, require them to pay for at least part of their rescue, permit bans, and holding people like influencers accountable when people copy them.[/quote]

This is an amazing and comprehensive post - thank you for writing it![/quote]

+1000

End thread[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics