Rafters ignored danger warnings prior to fatal capsizing

[chemgear]

Seems like these people keep ignoring the warnings:


http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...989/story.html

Four rafters who capsized in Harvie Passage on Monday, including the man fatally injured after falling into its swift currents, were warned to turn back because boating conditions were too dangerous.

Charges are still being considered in the case, but emergency responders are frustrated the death happened at all.

"They were stopped on the river, made aware (of dangerous conditions) and the vessel was inspected," said Calgary Police Service marine unit Acting Sgt. Ed Perkins.

"Unfortunately, it does seem that a lot of the people we stop out on the river are aware of the risks," Perkins said.

[Bigtime]

Someone please tell me why in cases like this the cost of rescue isn't being charged to the offenders?

[Fire]

We always have a few Darwin Award winners thanks to the Bow river every year.

[troutman]

The water is so treacherous that Burrell won’t even send his own water rescue team out on routine patrols.

Yet he’s forced to put the lives of his firefighters at risk if someone chooses to avoid numerous warnings and battle the Bow anyway.

"I can’t overly emphasize how important it is for citizens to wait until conditions on both rivers improve. Don’t take the chance of placing your safety or the safety of emergency responders at risk. This is the best way to prevent another serious incident from occurring," Burrell said in a media release.

"A ban would have to be done by the federal Department of Transportation," Burrell said, when asked why boaters weren’t simply ordered out of the river.

Since April, the Calgary Fire Department’s water rescue team has responded to 36 rescue calls at Harvie Passage — including 26 cases where the need for help was confirmed.

In the past, the department might receive four or five calls for help near the old weir annually.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Rafters...#ixzz1zfl4AWvK

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Someone please tell me why in cases like this the cost of rescue isn't being charged to the offenders?

Because we have services like this for a reason.

Would you suggest that people who's homes burn down should be charged for the cost of putting out the fire?

I agree that what these people did was irresponsible and dangerous, but you either have emergency services available to everyone or you charge everyone, you can't pick and choose.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Because we have services like this for a reason.

Would you suggest that people who's homes burn down should be charged for the cost of putting out the fire?

I agree that what these people did was irresponsible and dangerous, but you either have emergency services available to everyone or you charge everyone, you can't pick and choose.

Sure you can.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Because we have services like this for a reason.

Would you suggest that people who's homes burn down should be charged for the cost of putting out the fire?

I agree that what these people did was irresponsible and dangerous, but you either have emergency services available to everyone or you charge everyone, you can't pick and choose.

You're right, but there has to be some accountability somewhere. At the very least they should be given a fine of some sort.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Because we have services like this for a reason.

Would you suggest that people who's homes burn down should be charged for the cost of putting out the fire?

I agree that what these people did was irresponsible and dangerous, but you either have emergency services available to everyone or you charge everyone, you can't pick and choose.

If the fire dept. came to my house and warned me to move the fire pit away from my fence, and I chose to ignore them. Then I should be responsible for the cost.

Stupidity is not an excuse.

[Burninator]

I thought this new weir thinger was suppose to be a lot of safer?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I thought this new weir thinger was suppose to be a lot of safer?

It is. However that does not mean it is suitable for the casual rafter. It is designed so that people highly experienced in white water rafting may use the passage.

It's like saying a new 737 is much easier to fly than the older models. That doesn't mean everybody is now qualified to fly one.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Because we have services like this for a reason.

Would you suggest that people who's homes burn down should be charged for the cost of putting out the fire?

I agree that what these people did was irresponsible and dangerous, but you either have emergency services available to everyone or you charge everyone, you can't pick and choose.

We charge for speeding, drinking and driving, having a fire during dry season in some areas, etc.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

We charge for speeding, drinking and driving, having a fire during dry season in some areas, etc.

All of which are things that are specifically legislated against, and thus completely irrelevant in this case.

The article specifically says the fire department has no authority to take someone off the river.

If it was possible to put a river ban in place (which I think should be the case) and someone violated it then I'd be all for charging for a rescue, but when someone is doing something within the rules (Stupid as it may be) then that's exactly why we have emergency services.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

If it was possible to put a river ban in place (which I think should be the case) and someone violated it then I'd be all for charging for a rescue, but when someone is doing something within the rules (Stupid as it may be) then that's exactly why we have emergency services.

So why do hikers get charged for a STARS rescue? I don't see a difference between somebody being an idiot on a mountain vs. being an idiot on water.

[GP_Matt]

The issue is that the river is navigable and therefore falls under a federal act. I think it is pretty hard to close a navigable river.

For that matter, it could be that the running the weir is best at high water levels so those who have the experience and skills will be attracted to the river at that level and shouldn't be turned away because some fools in a Canadian Tire raft ignored common sense and warnings.

I have run several rivers while they were in flood and had advisories to stay off of them. Although when we go, it is pretty remote to begin with so there certainly isn't RCMP officers patrolling the river to advise caution or check to make sure everyone has a life jacket. When we go though, we know the risks and carry/know how to use gear for self rescues. We also use all appropriate safety gear.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

So why do hikers get charged for a STARS rescue? I don't see a difference between somebody being an idiot on a mountain vs. being an idiot on water.

That's not always the case, and I think depends pretty heavily on what the people were doing. For example I'm pretty sure if you go skiing out of bounds you're in trouble as you've voilated a rule and will likely be on the hook for the rescue costs, but if you just get lost hiking in a national park the government foots the bill.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's not always the case, and I think depends pretty heavily on what the people were doing. For example I'm pretty sure if you go skiing out of bounds you're in trouble as you've voilated a rule and will likely be on the hook for the rescue costs, but if you just get lost hiking in a national park the government foots the bill.

What rule is this?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Zee

What rule is this?

Most likely on the fine print on the back of your lift ticket, I'm sure I've seen it there saying you are on the hook if you choose to ski/board out of bounds.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

but if you just get lost hiking in a national park the government foots the bill.

Sorry, I said hikers. I meant more so unprepared/inexperienced climbers. In which I do know people who have been charged, albeit a fraction of what the service would actually cost.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Zee

What rule is this?

Are you serious?
Maybe the one about not going out of bounds?
You know, the one that's posted all over every ski hill in existance.

[Northendzone]

the bow river is dangerous, first i have heard about this.

hopefully those in charge at city hall are tweeting and whatnot about the danger.