|
General » rec.autos.driving » Because it's considered a 'privilege'
| Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #795899] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 21:27 |
|
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
<...>
Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New
Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way
through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of
anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees
imposed for a rescue operation.
<...>
Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on
recreational vehicles.
<...>
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #795927 ] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 23:49 |
|
In article <xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
>New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
><...>
>
>Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New
>Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way
>through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of
>anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees
>imposed for a rescue operation.
It gets better. They'll also suspend the professional license of
anyone involved, unless they pay the arbitrary fee. So "negligently"
get lost while hiking, and lose your ability to get around AND your
ability to work. You'll still be allowed to take a hike, though.
Of course, you know that the first person to lose their licenses under
this section will be some poor slob who wasn't lost at all, but was
found because some relative, friend, or co-worker panicked. They'll
argue they didn't need the rescue and won't pay for it, and the judge
will rule that they were "negligent" for not informing the relative,
friend, or co-worker not to call for rescue, and that will be the end
of that.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #795934 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 01:03 |
|
Brent P wrote:
>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
>New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
><...>
>
>Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New
>Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way
>through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of
>anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees
>imposed for a rescue operation.
>
><...>
>
>Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on
>recreational vehicles.
>
><...>
>
It's another way to discourage stupid people from driving.
--
People don't confuse me with someone who cares.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796004 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 18:31 |
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com:
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> <...>
>
> Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New
> Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way
> through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of
> anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees
> imposed for a rescue operation.
>
> <...>
>
> Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on
> recreational vehicles.
I don't get it. Why should they lose their license? And BTW, i hate these
idiots who get lost in the woods and expect the state to rescue them but
OTOH you can be sure the state is padding the rescue fees.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796010 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 19:52 |
|
On Feb 25, 5:49=A0pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> Of course, you know that the first person to lose their licenses under
> this section will be some poor slob who wasn't lost at all, but was
> found because some relative, friend, or co-worker panicked. =A0They'll
> argue they didn't need the rescue and won't pay for it, and the judge
> will rule that they were "negligent" for not informing the relative,
> friend, or co-worker not to call for rescue, and that will be the end
> of that.
As someone who lives in NH and enjoys hiking and riding in the
mountains year round, I can see this happening. Why should I pay tens
of thousands of dollars for a rescue I didn't need or want because
someone else thought I might be in trouble?
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796015 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 20:11 |
|
On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:49 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
> > Of course, you know that the first person to lose their licenses under
> > this section will be some poor slob who wasn't lost at all, but was
> > found because some relative, friend, or co-worker panicked. They'll
> > argue they didn't need the rescue and won't pay for it, and the judge
> > will rule that they were "negligent" for not informing the relative,
> > friend, or co-worker not to call for rescue, and that will be the end
> > of that.
>
> As someone who lives in NH and enjoys hiking and riding in the
> mountains year round, I can see this happening. Why should I pay tens
> of thousands of dollars for a rescue I didn't need or want because
> someone else thought I might be in trouble?
YOU wouldn't:
"This bill allows the fish and game department to recover the cost of
search and rescue responses from persons who **negligently** require
search and rescue services."
As I interpret it, if you fall and break your leg on a hike, you get
rescued for free.
If you wander into the wilderness like an idiot and get lost, or fall
free-climbing (and manage to not be killed), or ski out-of-bounds and
get buried by an avalanche, etc, you pay, or else.
Seems fair to me.
-----
- gpsman
Check the rental rates on a helicopter with a pilot sometime.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796027 ] |
Tue, 26 February 2008 21:15 |
|
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> <...>
>
Typical bright idea from the government. Make the punishment have
absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". How about --- if you don't pay
the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you're
arrested and you go to jail?
I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay the
state for their rescue - within reason. It's one thing climbing up Mount
Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up there
fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. I guess it
comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
John B.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796057 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 02:56 |
|
SFB spewed:
>tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in
>news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com:
>
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>>
>> New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New
>> Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way
>> through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of
>> anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees
>> imposed for a rescue operation.
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on
>> recreational vehicles.
>
>I don't get it. Why should they lose their license?
Why not? If they are stupid enough to go out into the woods with out
the requisite survival/navagational skills to return home safely, then
they are probablly stupid enough to drive beaters with bald and/or
sandpaper threaded tires, inoperable dash lights, no emergency brake
and painted with spray cans at inappropriate speeds through
residential areas and kill people about every 4 1/2 years or so.
People like that should not be allowed on the roads.
> And BTW, i hate these
>idiots who get lost in the woods and expect the state to rescue them but
>OTOH you can be sure the state is padding the rescue fees.
So the state is padding the fees. Big Fucking Deal. They provided
these hikers a service - that being saving them from themselves - and
the state billed the fools for it. Translation: no cost to the
taxpayers.Or do yo think the state should be providing this for
free??? I don't see what you are pissing and moaning about....
.....unless you are one of those idiots who routinely gets lost in the
woods.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff [at] posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796079 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 04:51 |
|
In article <c5f0f7eb-4231-4863-9bb7-36b59eff921d [at] j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gpsman [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 5:49 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Of course, you know that the first person to lose their licenses under
>> > this section will be some poor slob who wasn't lost at all, but was
>> > found because some relative, friend, or co-worker panicked. They'll
>> > argue they didn't need the rescue and won't pay for it, and the judge
>> > will rule that they were "negligent" for not informing the relative,
>> > friend, or co-worker not to call for rescue, and that will be the end
>> > of that.
>>
>> As someone who lives in NH and enjoys hiking and riding in the
>> mountains year round, I can see this happening. Why should I pay tens
>> of thousands of dollars for a rescue I didn't need or want because
>> someone else thought I might be in trouble?
>
>YOU wouldn't:
>
>"This bill allows the fish and game department to recover the cost of
>search and rescue responses from persons who **negligently** require
>search and rescue services."
>
>As I interpret it, if you fall and break your leg on a hike, you get
>rescued for free.
Unles the fish and game department considers your fall to be
negligent.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796081 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 05:07 |
|
In article <1204057010.373711 [at] nfs-db1.segnet.com>,
John B. <jlb [at] computac.com> wrote:
>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>>
>> New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>>
>> <...>
>>
>
>Typical bright idea from the government. Make the punishment have
>absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". How about --- if you don't pay
>the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you're
>arrested and you go to jail?
>
>I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay the
>state for their rescue - within reason. It's one thing climbing up Mount
>Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up there
>fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. I guess it
>comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
I remember some years ago some hikers got caught in a blizzard out
west (maybe Colorado). A search-and-rescue effort was mounted, but
not successful. The hikers walked out a few days later -- and the
govt tried to charge them for the failed (and obviously unnecessary)
rescue attempt. I don't know how that came out.
BTW, for gpstroll: Here's a guy who fell and twisted his ankle, and
got charged for the rescue:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6171214
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796119 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 16:08 |
|
On Feb 26, 12:15=A0pm, "John B." <j... [at] computac.com> wrote:
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> > New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> > <...>
>
> Typical bright idea from the government. =A0Make the punishment have
> absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". =A0How about --- if you don't p=
ay
> the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you're
> arrested and you go to jail?
>
> I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay t=
he
> state for their rescue - within reason. =A0It's one thing climbing up Moun=
t
> Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up there=
> fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. =A0I guess it
> comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
>
> John B.
Hard to define 'negligent'. We had a case here in the NW. Party
climbed Mt Hood and got caugh in a blizzard, rescue went on for 3 days
IIANM with full equipment including helicopters. Negligent? I
consider it so as that storm was predicted before they departed.
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796139 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 19:37 |
|
On Feb 26, 11:07=A0pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:
> In article <1204057010.373... [at] nfs-db1.segnet.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> John B. <j... [at] computac.com> wrote:
> >"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> >>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> >> New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> >> <...>
>
> >Typical bright idea from the government. =A0Make the punishment have
> >absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". =A0How about --- if you don't =
pay
> >the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you're
> >arrested and you go to jail?
>
> >I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay =
the
> >state for their rescue - within reason. =A0It's one thing climbing up Mou=
nt
> >Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up ther=
e
> >fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. =A0I guess it=
> >comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
>
> I remember some years ago some hikers got caught in a blizzard out
> west (maybe Colorado). =A0A search-and-rescue effort was mounted, but
> not successful. =A0The hikers walked out a few days later -- and the
> govt tried to charge them for the failed (and obviously unnecessary)
> rescue attempt. =A0I don't know how that came out.
>
> BTW, for gpstroll: =A0Here's a guy who fell and twisted his ankle, and
> got charged for the rescue:
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6171214
> --
> =A0 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practice=
s can
> =A0 result in a fully-depreciated one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is exactly my concern. Also, the "rescuers" may try to mandate
the recovery once they find you. If I take my own ass into the woods,
I intend to take it out. If I fail in this and require helicopters,
search parties, etc. that's a different story (and one that Darwin
could handle on his own). My concern lies in being charged for an
unnecessary "rescue", The fact that the people in charge of the
rescue are likely the biggest factors in determining negligence is
also a concern. In the event of an unnecessary rescue mission being
launched it provides a situation where a kettle needs an ass, and I
don't think many will be willing to provide their own.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796140 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 19:39 |
|
On Feb 27, 10:08=A0am, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:15=A0pm, "John B." <j... [at] computac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> > > New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> > > <...>
>
> > Typical bright idea from the government. =A0Make the punishment have
> > absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". =A0How about --- if you don't=
pay
> > the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you're
> > arrested and you go to jail?
>
> > I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay=
the
> > state for their rescue - within reason. =A0It's one thing climbing up Mo=
unt
> > Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up the=
re
> > fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. =A0I guess i=
t
> > comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
>
> > John B.
>
> Hard to define 'negligent'. =A0We had a case here in the NW. =A0Party
> climbed Mt Hood and got caugh in a blizzard, rescue went on for 3 days
> IIANM with full equipment including helicopters. =A0Negligent? =A0I
> consider it so as that storm was predicted before they departed.
>
> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I recently peaked a mountain with a friend while it was snowing, in
the dark, after work on a worknight. and there was already a few feet
of snow on the ground. There was nothing negligent about it, we
planned to do exactly what we did in the exact conditions we did it
in. Had someone decided we needed "rescue" and come after us I am not
willing to accept the expenses of the unnecessary search.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796154 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 21:05 |
|
On Feb 27, 1:39 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:08 am, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, "John B." <j... [at] computac.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> > > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> > > > New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> > > > <...>
>
> > > Typical bright idea from the government. Make the punishment have
> > > absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". How about --- if you don't pay
> > > the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you're
> > > arrested and you go to jail?
>
> > > I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay the
> > > state for their rescue - within reason. It's one thing climbing up Mount
> > > Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up there
> > > fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. I guess it
> > > comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
>
> > > John B.
>
> > Hard to define 'negligent'. We had a case here in the NW. Party
> > climbed Mt Hood and got caugh in a blizzard, rescue went on for 3 days
> > IIANM with full equipment including helicopters. Negligent? I
> > consider it so as that storm was predicted before they departed.
>
> I recently peaked a mountain with a friend while it was snowing, in
> the dark, after work on a worknight. and there was already a few feet
> of snow on the ground. There was nothing negligent about it, we
> planned to do exactly what we did in the exact conditions we did it
> in.
Lol. A "hike" up a "hill" "after work" is not "peaking" a "mountain".
> Had someone decided we needed "rescue" and come after us I am not
> willing to accept the expenses of the unnecessary search.
No worries. No rescue would begin until daylight if you haven't been
gone more than 24 hours.
And nobody is likely to send a search party looking for you because
you're late home from work by an hour either.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796157 ] |
Wed, 27 February 2008 21:19 |
|
On Feb 27, 3:05=A0pm, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:39 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:08 am, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 12:15 pm, "John B." <j... [at] computac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:xridnUIHX9QIuV7anZ2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> > > > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> > > > > New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> > > > > <...>
>
> > > > Typical bright idea from the government. =A0Make the punishment have=
> > > > absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". =A0How about --- if you d=
on't pay
> > > > the fine for your dumb ass getting lost in the White Mountains, you'=
re
> > > > arrested and you go to jail?
>
> > > > I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to=
pay the
> > > > state for their rescue - within reason. =A0It's one thing climbing u=
p Mount
> > > > Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up=
there
> > > > fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. =A0I gue=
ss it
> > > > comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn.
>
> > > > John B.
>
> > > Hard to define 'negligent'. =A0We had a case here in the NW. =A0Party
> > > climbed Mt Hood and got caugh in a blizzard, rescue went on for 3 days=
> > > IIANM with full equipment including helicopters. =A0Negligent? =A0I
> > > consider it so as that storm was predicted before they departed.
>
> > I recently peaked a mountain with a friend while it was snowing, in
> > the dark, after work on a worknight. and there was already a few feet
> > of snow on the ground. =A0There was nothing negligent about it, we
> > planned to do exactly what we did in the exact conditions we did it
> > in.
>
> Lol. =A0A "hike" up a "hill" "after work" is not "peaking" a "mountain".
>
> > Had someone decided we needed "rescue" and come after us I am not
> > willing to accept the expenses of the unnecessary search.
>
> No worries. =A0No rescue would begin until daylight if you haven't been
> gone more than 24 hours.
>
> And nobody is likely to send a search party looking for you because
> you're late home from work by an hour either.
> =A0-----
>
> - gpsman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pleased to hear you were watching. While there are many ways to peak
a mountain, an 8 hour voyage in the snow does qualify. Not all people
live the same life you do, so your projection of your own life may
have mislead you.
A 24 hour requirement to begin a rescue would be a good start. I
didn't see that mentioned in the word of the law, nor have I seen a 24
hour wait period to be in effect in the rescues I've read of
recently.
Further, the hike discussed here is not the extent of what my friends
and I do, just a recent and applicable example. Thanks for your
comments all the same.
|
|
|
| Re: Because it's considered a 'privilege' [message #796363 ] |
Fri, 29 February 2008 04:08 |
|
On Feb 25, 1:27 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
>
> New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
>
> <...>
>
> Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New
> Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way
> through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of
> anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees
> imposed for a rescue operation.
>
> <...>
>
> Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on
> recreational vehicles.
>
> <...>
In Colorado, they tacked 24 cents on to every hunting license as a
funding source for S&R.
Hunters don't usually get lost. Day hikers from Boulder fall from
rocks. Rich guys from wherever get stranded on their snowmobiles and
need help because they are too stupid to stick together.
IIRC, non-hunters could buy a permit that would serve as a free pass
to get rescued. Others had to pay.
I just never like the idea of using the force only on hunters. It
should have been voluntary for them as well.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 03:17:05 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.14588 Sekunden |
