If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
They are usually charged for the cost of the rescue in NH.
Every state's going to treat it differently. Comes a point where you know the legislature is going to be making comments about having to decide whether to "discourage" people from calling 911 vs. having the actual emergency services able to respond to real emergencies.
NH opted for the route of providing emergency services but treating the costs imposed it as a matter of personal responsibility. I believe there have even been cases where hikers were told to deal with a sprain rather than be choppered off. What a shock.
what if your not in need and someone sends them to help you....Are you on the hook to pay then?
The rules for the beacons should be simple.. first time you push it gets you air lifted out if you need it. After the first false alarm it is used to call in an air strike..
This really pisses me off.
Oh no. God forbid the people who pay the most taxes ("yuppies") actually use a little government service. I have just as much contempt for these weenies as the next guy, but let's be clear about one thing: money is not the issue. I would bet, with confidence, that people using these satellite emergency devices pay more in taxes than they receive from all levels of government.
This is no different than those stories of how irritating it is to check on false alarms for home security systems in nice neighborhoods. The answer is always to make "them" pay for the call. Here's a deal: I would be thrilled to pay a la cart for government service. Just don't make me pay taxes. Does anybody think that real government freeloaders would (or could) make the same claim?
Using the service != abusing the service. If someone is in need then they should get the help the require. If they are getting a full-blown rescue effort called out because they got sprayed by a skunk then they are taking away time, effort, and energy from a system designed to save others in actual need .
That's the trouble with government. If these services were paid for by users like any free market service, then nobody would care whether they have "actual need". But we use taxes. I am not defending these folks, but to single them out as egregious abuse is absurd. How about the folks who get domestic disturbance calls on a weekly basis, pay zero in taxes, and receive welfare, food stamps, and WIC payments? How is all of that not "abuse" of the services. But some "yuppie" hiker pays tens or hundreds of thousands per year in taxes, hits the panic button (stupidly, I'll admit) on a hike, and here comes the outrage. Who's really screwing the system here? The "yuppie" or that welfare recipient? How about we charge the welfare crowd a "fee" for all of the free stuff they get on my dime.
Did you read the whole article, because they hit the button three times not once. The rescue team should have taken them out on the first call, they are both to blame.
That's the trouble with government. If these services were paid for by users like any free market service, then nobody would care whether they have "actual need". But we use taxes. I am not defending these folks, but to single them out as egregious abuse is absurd. How about the folks who get domestic disturbance calls on a weekly basis, pay zero in taxes, and receive welfare, food stamps, and WIC payments? How is all of that not "abuse" of the services. But some "yuppie" hiker pays tens or hundreds of thousands per year in taxes, hits the panic button (stupidly, I'll admit) on a hike, and here comes the outrage. Who's really screwing the system here? The "yuppie" or that welfare recipient? How about we charge the welfare crowd a "fee" for all of the free stuff they get on my dime.
You should have to pay up front or no rescue cash or credit please