[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Rescue Stats
Sounds good to me...I would rather see a "pay as you go" fee than spreading
the costs to the rest of the tax payers.
I know that I will probably never need the rescue service...but I do not
like having to pay to bail out the other idiots.
Last Spring, I was descending from Half Dome in Yosemite and met a couple
with their young children in tow..hiking up...at 2:00 PM, there was no way
for them to summit and make it back down during daylight...but did either of
them pack a flashlight ?? NO....but,I did...even though I knew that I would
be able to complete my trip while the sun was still up....just in
case....These are candidates for Natural Selection...why should we be
fighting nature ??
And why should i pay to rescue these fools ??? If I hadn't given them my
flashlight (which was never returned - even though I gave them my address),
They would never have made it down on their own..
Just rename the rescue tax to the "moron tax" and you'll have no arguments.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 2:40 PM
Subject: [pct-l] Rescue Stats
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> Big article in todays Sunday paper. " Backcountry Rescues, Who should
> National Park Service rescues 1,177 hikers per year and 186 climbers. The
> Olympic Park spends an average of 71,000 dollars out of their budget of
> million per year. Mt. Rainier this year spent 74,000 on search and rescue
> of their budget of 9 million. Some say hikers and climbers should pay for
> their own recues. Other folks think backcounty rescue part of the cost of
> having a park, like the roads and bathrooms.
> My feeling is that I own the park itself and the fuel for the
> and the helichopter and pay the wages of the rangers with my tax dollars.
> Anyway, you all know my feelings toward fees. Seems Parks may be drumming
> support for new rescue fees.