Here’s the odd thing about this thought process. The coast guard is maintaining both personnel and equipment. With no rescues, the helicopter and crew would likely take maintenance and training flights. Why does there need to be any bill given we are supporting the capability anyway. It is part of all sorts of rescue and other services that other vessels are also using from time to time. It may prevent derelict ships from blocking shipping lanes, or rescuing sick crew from larger vessels, or identifying spilled cargo or materials.
This is the argument people have made against any number of tax payer funded things. Pick your politically charged poison on the topic.
Search and rescue is something we fund. Do we want to send bills to those we get lost in the forest? What about for police interactions? There's a very slippery slope to go down here.
Search and rescue can bill the recovered people if they set out recklessly, like without proper equipment or in bad conditions.
The point of putting at least some of the cost on the people being rescued is to make sure more people don't go out dangerously and require rescuing in the first place. I don't know if it makes sense for them to fund the whole thing but I see the purpose of the incentive.
So, if your spouse or other person you care for sets out in storm when travel is not advised, we need check if you have finances to pay before we send the search team? This is the slippery slope.
What other things in your life where you've not taken due diligence do we assess costs? If you want the fire department to come to your house have you had your monthly fire safety inspection? The list can go on and on.
Nah, we'll garnish your wages or put a lien on your house or something.
Lots of insurance plans require some due diligence to actually be covered. If a driver is reckless, they could be on the hook for the full amount of damages.
That is an insurance plan that you have chosen to get. Search and rescue is sometime we collective have decided as a society to fund with our taxes. When you start picking and choosing what meets your personal definition of risky or advised that is a two-edged sword and eventually it will come back and hurt you as well.
If you want to take an apt analogy it would be the fire department does not come out and attempt to cut you out of your damaged car until they've checked your credit record first just in case it's deemed you were at fault or risky. That's not the way it works fire and rescue comes out and attempts to do their best to rescue you from your vehicle without caring who you are or if you can pay. Reclaiming of damages for personal property is not the business of search and rescue. So in the original situation the Coast guard doesn't care whether they save your boat when you send out a mayday they come and help which is what we want.
We set limits on collective kinds of assistance all the time. Variously in law, or regulations, or some official's own discretion. It's very common.
Saving someone and holding them accountable for the situation are not exclusive. The fire department might put out a fire and then the government could still fine or jail someone for negligent arson if they took the wrong risk.
Another way to look at it
: the town of Marin actively wants people to come to their town an enjoy the beach and kayak. It's very much in the town's interest to for the occasional rescue bill in order to keep the tourists coming in.
In the same way, lots of towns will staff an information booth, and run some public toilets, and create tourist web sites.
11 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 41.4 ms ] threadSearch and rescue is something we fund. Do we want to send bills to those we get lost in the forest? What about for police interactions? There's a very slippery slope to go down here.
The point of putting at least some of the cost on the people being rescued is to make sure more people don't go out dangerously and require rescuing in the first place. I don't know if it makes sense for them to fund the whole thing but I see the purpose of the incentive.
What other things in your life where you've not taken due diligence do we assess costs? If you want the fire department to come to your house have you had your monthly fire safety inspection? The list can go on and on.
Lots of insurance plans require some due diligence to actually be covered. If a driver is reckless, they could be on the hook for the full amount of damages.
If you want to take an apt analogy it would be the fire department does not come out and attempt to cut you out of your damaged car until they've checked your credit record first just in case it's deemed you were at fault or risky. That's not the way it works fire and rescue comes out and attempts to do their best to rescue you from your vehicle without caring who you are or if you can pay. Reclaiming of damages for personal property is not the business of search and rescue. So in the original situation the Coast guard doesn't care whether they save your boat when you send out a mayday they come and help which is what we want.
Saving someone and holding them accountable for the situation are not exclusive. The fire department might put out a fire and then the government could still fine or jail someone for negligent arson if they took the wrong risk.
In the same way, lots of towns will staff an information booth, and run some public toilets, and create tourist web sites.