He got screwed because he never got to pick who rescues him. Bascially, Joe blow who gets rescued of a cliff face by the government gets off with no charge but this guy who gets stuck in the woods and gets rescued by Cypress needs to pay.
He didn't get to choose because he was on private land....oh, and the fact that there isn't much time to waste in a search and rescue.
You really don't understand the issue here do you?
PRIVATE LAND. Say that out loud about 10 times until it sinks in.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Even if he was no longer on private land; how would the searchers know that until they found him.
If the ski hill didn't do everything in their power to find the guy, and he ended up dying waiting for the gov't rescue, I would think the fact that the ski hill did nothing would be grounds for a lawsuit. So instead they conducted a search, and asked the person being rescued to pay for part of the bill.
I hiked in the Grand Canyon last May and I think their policy should be adopted in Canada for all these types of incidents.
Quote:
Q: If I get into trouble and need to be rescued, who pays for my rescue?
A: The National Park Service coordinates all emergency rescue operations within the park, which is a discretionary function of the agency. The costs of an inner canyon rescue are covered by the tax payer, however ground ambulance transport and supporting commercial aeromedical transportation is the financial responsibility of the patient.
In other words, they have no legal obligation to rescue you.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
While I don't disagree with it, whats the difference between this and having to rescue back country skiers? Or really any activity on crown land?
It shouldnt be different, anyone in back-country anywhere who needs to be rescued should have to pay IMO
I still cant believe that tax payers have to foot the bill for what is normally 99% stupidity and in the 1% that its not, to bad so sad. I dont like how the government has to pay extra for peoples actions. Everyone rescued should have to pay, if they dont want to pay then they can find their own way out.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
Last edited by mykalberta; 12-20-2012 at 11:45 AM.
Reason: really grinds my gears
To be clear, I am fully in support of this approach. This is obvious.
My comment was more directed at search and rescue of peoples that get themselves into trouble through lack of knowledge/skill. IE: someone that goes into the back country without checking the weather/conditions. These peoples have access to search and rescue services.
Should we be charging for their stupidity as well?
Thats why they call it stupid tax
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
I think that the difference is that he used Cypress' lift system to access the back country. Cypress is a private company and when you buy your lift ticket you are agreeing to their terms one of which is likely that you are not to leave the ski area boundary and if you do you are liable for the recovery costs.
I think most ski hills take a 'leave at your own risk' approach to their boundaries, as opposed to actually forbidding it. Once he was outside of the boundaries, I don't think the ski hill would have any responsibility to rescue him, so maybe they can't actually charge him for any rescue costs? From the story it sounds more like they are asking him to donate to the volunteer rescue service, as opposed to actually billing him.
Does anybody have a link to the actual terms of usage agreement from a ski hill? The closest I could find for Lake Louise is this:
Quote:
Ski Area Boundary
Outside the Lake Louise Ski Area boundary lies the backcountry of Banff National Park. Traveling in these areas is hazardous, and those leaving the ski area boundary do so at their own risk and must be prepared to travel on their own terms. The backcountry is not patrolled and receives no avalanche control, and includes other hazards such as cliffs, rocks, trees, and becoming lost. Backcountry travelers must rely on themselves in case of emergency, as rescue may take considerable time to come to your aid. Please contact any Banff National Park information centre for more information on backcountry travel.
I'm always unsure in Kickinghorse about their "out of bounds". They have two areas that many people hike to that sometimes isn't marked off and they control for avalanches (with artillery shells). I always wondered if it's officially out of bounds or not
^There's a difference between "out of bounds", and permanent closure. PC areas are closed because the risk is deemed too high no matter the conditions. Doesn't mean they're unskiable, necessarily.
It shouldnt be different, anyone in back-country anywhere who needs to be rescued should have to pay IMO
I still cant believe that tax payers have to foot the bill for what is normally 99% stupidity and in the 1% that its not, to bad so sad. I dont like how the government has to pay extra for peoples actions. Everyone rescued should have to pay, if they dont want to pay then they can find their own way out.
As long as we have public health care I think we have to keep search and rescue free. I would think that hockey players cost more to the public coffers than back country skiers. Blow a knee and you could be in line for thousands of dollars in surgery and such. Then you have smokers, over eaters, speeders. Maybe we should make anyone who is in a car accident speeding pay for their medical bill.
I didn't read the thread (just read the title), but it's just another example of the pussification of society that this idiot snowboarder gets lost and the Nanny State gives him a 10 thousand dollar bill for his troubles.
I didn't even know they made 10 thousand dollar bills. I'll bet Trudeau's face is on it.
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
The laws regarding out-of-bounds skiing in Canada are one of the things that allows our ski hills to have such great out-of-bounds skiing.
You cross that rope, you are your own responsibility and neither the hill, nor the government is liable for your rescue. Since you presumably used privately-owned facilities (chairlifts, parking lot, etc.) to access the out-of-bounds area this is clearly different from using public facilities (highway, campground, trail) to get lost.
In the case of using public facilities to get yourself lost, there is an onus on the government to come an get you. When you use private facilities and then knowingly leave the area serviced by the private company it obviates anyone but yourself of responsibility.
The protection of ski hill operators from liability in these cases is hugely important because it allows those of us who are capable of skiing the backcountry to access it with relative ease, and not worry about things like getting our passes revoked for leaving the boundary.
While it is within a ski-hills right to revoke your pass for leaving the area, it's not something I've ever run into. Whereas in many States in America it's automatic the hill takes your pass and kicks you off the mountain, simply for liability reasons.
I love the 'you're your own problem' mentality when it comes to out-of-bounds skiing.
God almighty I miss skiing. Maybe I'll go to Korea for Chinese New Year.
ski pron:
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
As mentioned earlier, most ski resorts take a "leave at your own risk" approach. It's not against the law to cross into the backcountry, just you should know what you're getting into. And the resort shouldn't be on the hook to rescue you if anything goes wrong.
If you're in a national park, your pass actually helps pay for a rescue service if you need it. That's if you get stranded hiking, or need a helicopter evac from backcountry skiing.
That said, if there is an avalanche, a helicopter isn't going to save you. You need a shovel, probe, and transceiver; as well as a friend (or two!) equipped with the same gear. And you all need to know how to use it. You don't have time to sit around and wait for a helicopter.
