Rescued B.C. snowboarder to get $10K bill - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

chemgear · 12-20-2012, 09:22 AM

I hope more of these bills will be going out in the future:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...l-boucher.html

The private company that operates the Cypress Mountain ski area on Vancouver’s North Shore says it plans to present a bill for $10,000 to a snowboarder who became lost after he went out of bounds Sunday, triggering a three-day search that ended with his rescue Tuesday night.

Koeman said that in order to end up where he did, Boucher, 33, of West Vancouver, had to have ignored and disobeyed a series of warning signs and then either climbed over or crawled under a boundary rope.

Koeman said any payment from Boucher would be donated to the North Shore Search and Rescue Society, which conducted the successful search.

ernie · 12-20-2012, 09:25 AM

If indeed what they say it true then good he should pay the bill.

Sliver · 12-20-2012, 09:26 AM

That's cool. I'd be surprised if he even minded paying.

bc-chris · 12-20-2012, 09:28 AM

too bad the bill wasn't more

CaptainCrunch · 12-20-2012, 09:31 AM

Good, maybe they should seize all of his snowboarding equipment if he can't pay.

undercoverbrother · 12-20-2012, 09:32 AM

Good.

I have no problem with this. The only issue is where do you draw the line?

ken0042 · 12-20-2012, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The only issue is where do you draw the line?

I think they drew the line with a yellow rope; right along the boundry.

opendoor · 12-20-2012, 09:36 AM

He's getting off easy. I believe the actual costs of the rescue were in the $100K territory.

undercoverbrother · 12-20-2012, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think they drew the line with a yellow rope; right along the boundry.

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?

ernie · 12-20-2012, 09:39 AM

Just a note...in the story on canoe (i never read the CBC one fully) he has owned up to being stupid and seems to fully accept the bill that is coming.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../20443956.html

To the above the BC provincial search and rescue specialist does not think charging people is a good idea as it might make them less likely to call for help and they'll get themselves in an even worse situation.

surferguy · 12-20-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think they drew the line with a yellow rope; right along the boundry.

Kavvy · 12-20-2012, 09:41 AM

Weird part is the company will donate the money to charity if they receive any. Seems like they are not sure if they have a case or not.

I like how they are doing this. A 100K bill can wreak a mans life for years, this will hurt him, if he has to pay.

As a snowboarder, the only place I ever go out of bounds is the Sunshine back door, which is almost welcoming with the arch way.

Simply rule to follow: never ever pass a big red stop sign on the hill that says out of bounds.

ken0042 · 12-20-2012, 09:51 AM

Now, are you saying "hooking" in that I injured myself doing something that was against the rules of the sport I was playing?

Or have you just been watching my games?

polak · 12-20-2012, 10:08 AM

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?

GP_Matt · 12-20-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

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?

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.
Someone who skins up a mountain in the back country agreed to no such terms and there is a rescue system in place to help if they get in trouble.

polak · 12-20-2012, 10:25 AM

Thats true, but it seems like he sort of got screwed in the end. If Cypress decided to leave it to the government to rescue him - which I think they could have - then it would be free? I mean, once he broke the terms and conditions and is off of their property isn't Cypress no longer liable to rescue him? I'm talking out of my ass here but thats what I thought?

Again, I'm not disagreeing that the guy should have been charged, it's just kind of an odd situation. In the end, the guy didn't put himself into any more danger then anyone else does when they go into the back country alone.

undercoverbrother · 12-20-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Someone who skins up a mountain in the back country agreed to no such terms and there is a rescue system in place to help if they get in trouble.

I am not so sure, the problem is it is not black and white. Many people get in over their head. If they put themselves in a position in the back country that is out of their skill set, should they then be responsible?

puckluck2 · 12-20-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fotze

Maybe he means, the line for recovering costs. You played rec hockey, blew out your knee as you reached out to hook somebody and now you cost society $75k in surgery and rehab.

But ya, I wouldn't worry about placing the line somewhere beyond skiing out of bounds. Not a gray area there.

Apples and Oranges.

The snowboarder isn't being asked to pay his medical expenses, he's being asked to pay the privately owned search and rescue expenses.

puckluck2 · 12-20-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polak

Thats true, but it seems like he sort of got screwed in the end. If Cypress decided to leave it to the government to rescue him - which I think they could have - then it would be free? I mean, once he broke the terms and conditions and is off of their property isn't Cypress no longer liable to rescue him? I'm talking out of my ass here but thats what I thought?

You first say you agree with him being charged with rescue expenses and now "he got screwed"?

Pick a side and stop being so passive aggressive.

polak · 12-20-2012, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iginla

You first say you agree with him being charged with rescue expenses and now "he got screwed"?

Pick a side and stop being so passive aggressive.

He got screwed because he never got to pick who rescues him. Bascially, Joe blow who gets rescued off of a cliff face in an extremely dangerous and complex mission by the government gets off with no charge and probably has a party thrown for him upon return but this guy who gets stuck in the woods and gets rescued by Cypress needs to pay.

Both are idiots, but only one gets screwed.