On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:09:52 -0700, WH wrote:

On Sep 7, 11:33 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:20:05 -0700, Werewolfy wrote:

On Sep 7, 1:58?am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

I think he crashed and is probably dead by now.

Recover costs of 'rescue', or costs of trying to save a life? Are you
serious Woodsy? Does America do that?

Yes, depending on the situation. If you're in an area that's got warnings
all over that you shouldn't be there, it's dangerous, proceed at your own
risk, etc, heck yes! Why should taxpayers foot the bill for someone
else's stupidity?

That said, if the rescue is due to something like the trails being poorly
marked, or something that the rescuee could not possibly have foreseen,
then no. But if you do something really stupid, like say, not file a
flight plan and make the search cost lot$ and lot$ more than it should
have been, yes.

I don't suppose the man in question would care a lot anyway. That's one
of the things that happen with death, a lack of interest in affairs.

But I can't quite understand the 'recovery of costs by legal process'
part. You must be the only Nation in the World that does that, if true.

Generally, a bill will be sent for the cost of the search, which is a
loss to the government, not part of the cost of doing business. If the
person fails to pay the bill, then it can (and often does) end up in
court. Like I said, the costs associated with mounting a search and
rescue operation is a loss, and there's no reason for the taxpayers to
absorb that loss for someone who is being stupid.

Spend billions killing Arabs and reclaim 'costs' for saving a person's
life? Has your Government become that unstable, that insane?

It's usually local governments, who are generally strapped for cash, who
decide whether to try to get back the cost of mounting a search and rescue
operation. I'm not sure if you realize how much it costs to go through
something like that, but it involves a lot of overtime staffing costs
which generally are not in the budget.

We aren't talking about people who think they're on a marked trail and
wander off it by accident because the markers are unreadable (or they're
n00bs and don't know what they're doing), but people who are warned to NOT
do something (or go somewhere) and do it anyway. I see no reason why
everyone else should bear the financial risk *they* chose to incur by
knowingly engaging in a high risk activity. That's not what our emergency
services are provided funding for.

Woods

Werewolfy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well our search and rescue is for free...even as far as I know for
foreigners. If it is so in the US that one should pay for it then why
not pay for fire brigade service and ambulances. Same difference!
Maybe even if you ring the cops?

WH

Like I said, people are generally only charged for the expense if they were
basically acting with gross negligence to get themselves into the
situation. We aren't talking about a kid or visitor getting lost in a
little 100 acre park, here. We're talking huge tracts of wilderness that
have signs posted to stay out. It is extremely expensive to track these
morons down and airlift them out, and it is also a risk to the rescuers.
This is not the kind of terrain that's easy to get in and out of, and
rescuers can (and do) get injured or killed because of these dipsticks.

You will be charged for the cost of the fire department if you were found
to have started a fire through gross negligence. (You will also be
charged with a crime). Like, say, tossing a lit cigarette out your car
window or starting a campfire during a drought, ending up with a wildfire
that makes national news.

Volunteer ambulance corps generally do not charge, but some will send a
bill if they know you are insured and you were not transferred to another
ambulance. (The ambulance corps I used to ride for did this - they let
people know that they didn't have to pay it upfront, though, and it was
just to get some money if the insurance company would cover the expense).
An ambulance company that's not volunteer will always charge, and will
sue to get their money - and they can be extremely expensive. When my son
fainted due to dehydration during a visit to Mississippi, we were billed
over $1,000 to cart him 6 miles to the hospital.

I don't think the police charge anyone - they keep getting money thrown at
them, though, so long as they keep yelling "drugs! drugs! drugs!" LOL!

Woods- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:09:52 -0700, WH wrote:

On Sep 7, 11:33 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:20:05 -0700, Werewolfy wrote:

On Sep 7, 1:58?am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

I think he crashed and is probably dead by now.

Recover costs of 'rescue', or costs of trying to save a life? Are you
serious Woodsy? Does America do that?

Yes, depending on the situation. If you're in an area that's got warn=

all over that you shouldn't be there, it's dangerous, proceed at your =

risk, etc, heck yes! Why should taxpayers foot the bill for someone
else's stupidity? =20

That said, if the rescue is due to something like the trails being poo=

marked, or something that the rescuee could not possibly have foreseen,
then no. But if you do something really stupid, like say, not file a
flight plan and make the search cost lot$ and lot$ more than it should
have been, yes.

I don't suppose the man in question would care a lot anyway. That's =

of the things that happen with death, a lack of interest in affairs.

But I can't quite understand the 'recovery of costs by legal process'
part. You must be the only Nation in the World that does that, if tr=

Generally, a bill will be sent for the cost of the search, which is a
loss to the government, not part of the cost of doing business. If the
person fails to pay the bill, then it can (and often does) end up in
court. Like I said, the costs associated with mounting a search and
rescue operation is a loss, and there's no reason for the taxpayers to
absorb that loss for someone who is being stupid.

Spend billions killing Arabs and reclaim 'costs' for saving a person=

life? Has your Government become that unstable, that insane?

It's usually local governments, who are generally strapped for cash, w=

decide whether to try to get back the cost of mounting a search and re=

operation. I'm not sure if you realize how much it costs to go through
something like that, but it involves a lot of overtime staffing costs
which generally are not in the budget. =20

We aren't talking about people who think they're on a marked trail and
wander off it by accident because the markers are unreadable (or they'=

n00bs and don't know what they're doing), but people who are warned to=

do something (or go somewhere) and do it anyway. I see no reason why
everyone else should bear the financial risk *they* chose to incur by
knowingly engaging in a high risk activity. That's not what our emerg=

services are provided funding for.

Woods

Werewolfy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well our search and rescue is for free...even as far as I know for
foreigners. If it is so in the US that one should pay for it then why
not pay for fire brigade service and ambulances. Same difference!
Maybe even if you ring the cops?

WH

Like I said, people are generally only charged for the expense if they we=

basically acting with gross negligence to get themselves into the
situation. We aren't talking about a kid or visitor getting lost in a
little 100 acre park, here. We're talking huge tracts of wilderness that
have signs posted to stay out. It is extremely expensive to track these
morons down and airlift them out, and it is also a risk to the rescuers.
This is not the kind of terrain that's easy to get in and out of, and
rescuers can (and do) get injured or killed because of these dipsticks.

You will be charged for the cost of the fire department if you were found
to have started a fire through gross negligence. (You will also be
charged with a crime). Like, say, tossing a lit cigarette out your car
window or starting a campfire during a drought, ending up with a wildfire
that makes national news.

Volunteer ambulance corps generally do not charge, but some will send a
bill if they know you are insured and you were not transferred to another
ambulance. (The ambulance corps I used to ride for did this - they let
people know that they didn't have to pay it upfront, though, and it was
just to get some money if the insurance company would cover the expense).
An ambulance company that's not volunteer will always charge, and will
sue to get their money - and they can be extremely expensive. When my son
fainted due to dehydration during a visit to Mississippi, we were billed
over $1,000 to cart him 6 miles to the hospital.

I don't think the police charge anyone - they keep getting money thrown at
them, though, so long as they keep yelling "drugs! drugs! drugs!" LOL!

Woods- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 7, 6:09 pm, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 7, 11:33 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:20:05 -0700, Werewolfy wrote:

On Sep 7, 1:58?am, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

I think he crashed and is probably dead by now.

Recover costs of 'rescue', or costs of trying to save a life? Are
you
serious Woodsy? Does America do that?

Yes, depending on the situation. If you're in an area that's got
warnings
all over that you shouldn't be there, it's dangerous, proceed at your
own
risk, etc, heck yes! Why should taxpayers foot the bill for someone
else's stupidity?

That said, if the rescue is due to something like the trails being
poorly
marked, or something that the rescuee could not possibly have
foreseen,
then no. But if you do something really stupid, like say, not file a
flight plan and make the search cost lot$ and lot$ more than it
should
have been, yes.

I don't suppose the man in question would care a lot anyway. That's
one
of the things that happen with death, a lack of interest in
affairs.

But I can't quite understand the 'recovery of costs by legal
process'
part. You must be the only Nation in the World that does that, if
true.

Generally, a bill will be sent for the cost of the search, which is a
loss to the government, not part of the cost of doing business. If
the
person fails to pay the bill, then it can (and often does) end up in
court. Like I said, the costs associated with mounting a search and
rescue operation is a loss, and there's no reason for the taxpayers
to
absorb that loss for someone who is being stupid.

Spend billions killing Arabs and reclaim 'costs' for saving a
person's
life? Has your Government become that unstable, that insane?

It's usually local governments, who are generally strapped for cash,
who
decide whether to try to get back the cost of mounting a search and
rescue
operation. I'm not sure if you realize how much it costs to go
through
something like that, but it involves a lot of overtime staffing costs
which generally are not in the budget.

We aren't talking about people who think they're on a marked trail
and
wander off it by accident because the markers are unreadable (or
they're
n00bs and don't know what they're doing), but people who are warned
to NOT
do something (or go somewhere) and do it anyway. I see no reason why
everyone else should bear the financial risk *they* chose to incur by
knowingly engaging in a high risk activity. That's not what our
emergency
services are provided funding for.

Woods

Werewolfy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well our search and rescue is for free...even as far as I know for
foreigners. If it is so in the US that one should pay for it then why
not pay for fire brigade service and ambulances. Same difference!
Maybe even if you ring the cops?

WH

Only a Douche Bag would think that any of these are free, the money
doesn't just appear like cotton mouths around a birch tree.

On Sunday 09 September 2007 06:38, Pers3id wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Werewolfy
<Werewolfy1@yahoo.co.uk> Spat the Words

On Sep 9, 5:49?am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

"His head exploded."

Will they send him the bill?

Werewolfy

He probably got kidnapped and is being held for ransom as we speak.
The guy was a multi-millionaire.

All aircraft are supposed to carry an ELT, (Emergency Location
Transmitter). If there is a big search like this, he wasn't flying
with one. Why not? Is it broken, maybe? I have heard no reports
about this.