Rescuing the X-men (and X-women too)

[Mazomaniac]

So a big controversy has started to erupt in the "extreme sports" world about where to draw the line on rescuing athletes.

The whole argument fired up a couple months ago when a well-known surfer died at spot called Mavericks off the coast of California. Federal environmental regulations prohibit the use of jet skis and other water craft in the area except during certain defined surfing seasons. The guy who died was in there outside of the surf season so there were no jet skis or rescue crews there to save him. Another surfer nearly drowned at the same spot a couple of months earlier for basically the same reason.

Now the surfers are up in arms because there isn't a rescue crew for the area. They're trying to get the regs changed to let them use jet skis there so they can surf the place all year round "in safety". The Feds respond by saying "The regs were there before you were. You know that there ain't no jet ski to save your ass. If you paddle out under those conditions it's your damage."

To a great extent I side with the government on this one. Rules is rules. One the other hand I can see the surfer's point on this. We've got search and rescue teams all over the place plucking people off of mountains and out of rivers. Why not have one for this place too?

On top of all this is the fact that Mavericks is one of a handful of unique sites where you get truly unbelievable waves. It's one of about five spots in the US where you can tow-in surf (using a jet ski to catch waves too big to paddle into). That benefits both sides of the argument: it's both a unique spot in nature that we should let people use and one totally fucking dangerous place to play in the ocean. If there was a place for a rescue team this is it.

So what do we do here?

Do we leave mountain climbers, rafters, surfers, etc to their own means when they get in trouble?

Do we put the government into the rescue business for everybody who wants to do something insanely dangerous?

Or do we put it somewhere in between and tax these guys through permits or make them pay for the helicopter ride when their day at the mountain/river/beach goes badly?

Personally, I'm torn on this. I grew up riding in So Cal so I know the draw that those big waves have. I hate to see people cut off from these spots. At the same time I can't see why we should be spending tax money on boats and helicopters to go suck them out of trouble. I also don't like the notion of every ass clown with a long board trying to ride monsters because he knows the patrol is there to drag him out.

I guess I take the Mt. Everest approach to this: if you get in trouble on Everest then that's where you're gonna stay for the rest of your (short) life. You knew the odds. You took your shot. That's the way it is. The risk is part of the thrill. It's the price you pay for once-in-a-lifetime experiences.

And just to demonstrate the kind of wave we're talking about here, this is mega surfer Laird Hamilton riding a monster at Peahi (AKA Jaws) on the north shore of Maui. This ain't Beach Boys surfin. This is serious, dangerous stuff. You drop into one of these and I say you deserve everything you get - good and bad. Don't expect me to paddle out and recover the body.



Cheers,
Mazo.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Personally, I'm torn on this. I grew up riding in So Cal so I know the draw that those big waves have. I hate to see people cut off from these spots. At the same time I can't see why we should be spending tax money on boats and helicopters to go suck them out of trouble. I also don't like the notion of every ass clown with a long board trying to ride monsters because he knows the patrol is there to drag him out.

I guess I take the Mt. Everest approach to this: if you get in trouble on Everest then that's where you're gonna stay for the rest of your (short) life. You knew the odds. You took your shot. That's the way it is. The risk is part of rill. It's the price you pay for once-in-a-lifetime ) on the north s You you get - good and bad. Don't expect me to paddle out and recover the body.

Mazo.

+1

[charlestudor2005]

First of all, government funded rescue should be left to those scenarios for which they were intended: natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, etc.), fires, explosions, MVAs, and the like.

Devoting these resources to "sports" is wrong. If anyone supports these rescue missions, it should be the sport. Let them fund any rescue attempts.

Now, I realize that every high school, college and pro sports game/meet has an ambulance waiting in the event of an injury. I don't know how that's financed. But I think people would be more willing to publicly finance an ambulance at a high school football game than at the Dallas Cowboys game. And I think the extreme sports are more akin to the pros than to high school.

[BTW, my nephew has participated in the x-games. I don't expect local govt's to pick up the tab.]

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I guess I take the Mt. Everest approach to this: if you get in trouble on Everest then that's where you're gonna stay for the rest of your (short) life. You knew the odds. You took your shot. That's the way it is. The risk is part of the thrill. It's the price you pay for once-in-a-lifetime experiences.

I agree with this overall concept. But it is a bit harder to impliment in practice.

Thrill seekers...whether riding the big wave, climbing some big mountain, or floating on a raging river...are always going to need rescuing. And as long as there is a television camera affixed on the incident, and an individual who is willing to risk life and limb to save 'em...some of them are going to be saved. Whether these saving efforts should be a cost to society is another question entirely. This same thought process could be applied to those who choose to smoke; use drugs; eat a double-double with fries and a shake; or enage in high risk activies like P4P.

It seems there is a prevelent view in some circles that it is society's obligation to save people from themselves...up to, and including the fact, that we will legislate that obligation and fund it with taxes.

How do we choose who to save?...and who to let fall off the cliff?

[Bebe Le Strange]

I don't know.. I on the one hand don't like stupid people doing stupid things and expecting to be rescued. I do enjoy the X games sports very much, but I think that for the most part we are talking about professionals versus the novice who think they are professionals. But on the other hand why would we let someone die just because we don't want to pay for it? I just can't put a price on human life no matter how stupid the person was in the first place.

So I am having a hard time making my mind up on this one.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

It seems there is a prevelent view in some circles that it is society's obligation to save people from themselves...up to, and including the fact, that we will legislate that obligation and fund it with taxes.

How do we choose who to save?...and who to let fall off the cliff?

I agree how do we choose, and should we be choosing in the first place. I think it is more of a moral obligation to help someone (save them from dying) even if it means they did something not so smart, or had an error in judgement.

[pjorourke]

Another relevant question is it fair to put the lives of the rescuers in danger trying to save these adrenalin junkies? Seems to me that if you reduce the chance of these nimrods getting themselves killed by providing government financed safety lines, you take away part of their "thrill" and they will just have to try something more extreme to satisfy their appetite.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Saving these people is like voting for politicians. You're just encouraging the bastards. Right PJ?
.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Another relevant question is it fair to put the lives of the rescuers in danger trying to save these adrenalin junkies? Seems to me that if you reduce the chance of these nimrods getting themselves killed by providing government financed safety lines, you take away part of their "thrill" and they will just have to try something more extreme to satisfy their appetite.

Yes that can and does happen, putting the rescuers lives in jeopardy to save someone in a bad spot. I still do not believe in standing by and letting someone die just because, A) it costs taxpayers B) puts the rescuers in jeopardy, even though that is their job

I think human life is far too valuable, even for the stupid people who do stupid things. If the rescuers don't do it, in all likelihood someone who is not trained might jump in and try to save that person and then you have more dead bodies to count.

Seeing that the rescuers have the equipment and manpower and training to rescue people from bad situations and save lives it doesn't make sense to choose who lives or who dies by telling them, "well this person did something stupid so let him/her pay the price with their life, we aren't going in to save them".

Edit: Let us take it a step further and say with this logic you could apply that to the hospitals and doctors too who try to save people from "stupid actions" and save a limb, a life. How would it look if we said, don't treat that person or save their life because they did something stupid. I think there would be more of an uproar if this same logic was applied in a hospital / ER setting don't you think?

[guest010613]

...the stupid shall be punished. Doesn't say how much or by whom, but truly stupid actions (or inactions) generally come with an associated cost. Thrill-seeking is inherently stupid to some degree (and as a Naval Aviator and professional thrill-seeking semi-idiot, I am allowed to comment on my own kind!) so it comes with guaranteed punishment of some sort. Whether there is a societal obligation to render aid to the stupid during or after their punishment is debatable as evidenced by this thread, but it seems the greater the act of stupidity or degree of risk, the less the obligation befalls society to attempt to repair the damage.

So, to address the OP's specific example, I would refer to the attitude expressed by the pictured Mr. Hamilton. During an interview for Sports Illustrated a few years ago, he opined that, in general, his risk-taking was on him, as was the obligation to set up safety measures for himself. If someone wants to assume the risk of surfing in dangerous waters when there is no hope of rescue and it is arguably too dangerous or expensive to conduct rescue operations in the area during the time they wish to act stupidly, then to them I say YOYO (Your On Your Own).

Just my $.02, of course

[charlestudor2005]

I don't think the options are either to have rescue or to not have rescue. I think the critical issue raised here is whether or not govt funds it.

I think the answer is to require rescue to be there, put to have it be private rescue, privately funded.

Or close the beaches. And disclaim any liability for what may happen to the xtremers.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Yes that can and does happen, putting the rescuers lives in jeopardy to save someone in a bad spot. I still do not believe in standing by and letting someone die just because, A) it costs taxpayers B) puts the rescuers in jeopardy, even though that is their job

I think human life is far too valuable, even for the stupid people who do stupid things. If the rescuers don't do it, in all likelihood someone who is not trained might jump in and try to save that person and then you have more dead bodies to count.

Seeing that the rescuers have the equipment and manpower and training to rescue people from bad situations and save lives it doesn't make sense to choose who lives or who dies by telling them, "well this person did something stupid so let him/her pay the price with their life, we aren't going in to save them".

Edit: Let us take it a step further and say with this logic you could apply that to the hospitals and doctors too who try to save people from "stupid actions" and save a limb, a life. How would it look if we said, don't treat that person or save their life because they did something stupid. I think there would be more of an uproar if this same logic was applied in a hospital / ER setting don't you think?

Such is the delima one runs into when they mix the "charitable view" of "watching after our neighbor" with the "government services view" of providing goods and services to its citzens under a defined set of circumstances (at a forced cost to all of us).

Is it society's (i.e. government services) obligation to take care of someone who rides a bike without a helmet and has an accident? Is it society's obligation to take care of someone who uses drugs? Is it society's obligation to take care of those folks who engage in poor health activities? Is it society's obligation to take care of those folks who like to live life on the edge? The list goes on and on.

It always amazes me that the same folks who think it is society's obligation to take care of all these folks...also believe that society should have very little role in regulating their participation in the activity. That just seems counterintuitive to me. Personal responsibility fosters individual freedom...and (it seems to me) vice-versa.

Each of us has our own view of our charitable obilgations to our fellow man...and I am all for that being as expansive as we want it to be. But where we run into the dispute is...when we legislate "taking care of" these folks by govenrment services with these folks having a non-equivalent obligation back to society to act in a prudent manner.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Such is the delima one runs into when they mix the "charitable view" of "watching after our neighbor" with the "government services view" of providing goods and services to its citzens under a defined set of circumstances (at a forced cost to all of us).

Is it society's (i.e. government services) obligation to take care of someone who rides a bike without a helmet and has an accident? Is it society's obligation to take care of someone who uses drugs? Is it society's obligation to take care of those folks who engage in poor health activities? Is it society's obligation to take care of those folks who like to live life on the edge? The list goes on and on.

It always amazes me that the same folks who think it is society's obligation to take care of all these folks...also believe that society should have very little role in regulating their participation in the activity. That just seems counterintuitive to me. Personal responsibility fosters individual freedom...and (it seems to me) vice-versa.

Each of us has our own view of our charitable obilgations to our fellow man...and I am all for that being as expansive as we want it to be. But where we run into the dispute is...when we legislate "taking care of" these folks by govenrment services with these folks having a non-equivalent obligation back to society to act in a prudent manner.

Ok, so maybe we should legalize drugs and tax it, and only privately funded organizations can deal with the aftermath of drug abuse just as we do with alcoholism.

If someone takes a "risk", child / adult alike and swims where signs are posted, or where it says "no surfing, jet skiing" etc, then when they end up in deadly circumstances, we just throw out those privately owned rescuers, who in all likelihood won't rescue unless they know someone is paying for it. Sooo.. pretty much a death sentence automatic for most. But at least we the tax payers are not paying for it.

We can do this with Firefighters too, just stop funding them, and let it go privately funded. Then we get to watch someone's house burn down because someone didn't pay their monthly fee, and forgot to blow out that candle, or turn off that coffee pot. At least it doesn't cost the taxpayers.

I mean I could go on and on too. It all pretty much boils down to money, and that is what we are really talking about. I think there is no easy solution on this subject, but I still maintain that human life is too valuable to put a price on.

Edit: Personally I think we all have a moral obligation to help our fellow man/woman. These organizations were put into place by the people who wanted to help others in times of crisis, and at one time the taxpayers agreed that the money funded for these organizations/rescuers was for a good cause when it comes down to human life.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Do we put the government into the rescue business for everybody who wants to do something insanely dangerous?

With public budgets stretched everywhere, I don't think we can really afford to do that. In any event, it would divert scarce resources from something else. Further, I think it would simply be enabling behavior, possibly encouraging more people to take extreme risks.

However...

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

...Or do we put it somewhere in between and tax these guys through permits or make them pay for the helicopter ride when their day at the mountain/river/beach goes badly?

Maybe something along those lines would be workable in extremely risky (but attractive) areas involving activities coveted by thrill-seekers.

Along a similar vein, during the last decade or so, a growing number of inexperieced hikers and campers have gotten themselves into trouble in the Rocky Mountains.

I know several people with homes in Jackson Hole and occasionally visit the area. With the recent advent of near-universal cell phone coverage and inexpensive portable GPS devices, a number of hikers -- some of them college students -- have taken risks they otherwise would never have considered. In some cases, they just weren't dressed for the excursion and it got late in the day and too damn cold! (Even in summer, temperatures in the rockies can get into the 30s at night, or occasionally even colder.)

Technology can give people a false sense of security. They may feel that if they get into a bit of a bind, all they have to do is call and the Forest Service will send out a chopper. But a rescue helicopter is not a cheap date!

So a few years back, authorities in the Grand Teton area announced that anyone who was poorly prepared for a hiking or camping excursion and got into trouble would have to pay for the rescue. That outraged a lot of people who apparently felt entitled to free rescue services no matter how foolish their activities, but in my opinion it was absolutely the correct decision.

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Seeing that the rescuers have the equipment and manpower and training to rescue people from bad situations and save lives it doesn't make sense to choose who lives or who dies by telling them, "well this person did something stupid so let him/her pay the price with their life, we aren't going in to save them".

Edit: Let us take it a step further and say with this logic you could apply that to the hospitals and doctors too who try to save people from "stupid actions" and save a limb, a life. How would it look if we said, don't treat that person or save their life because they did something stupid. I think there would be more of an uproar if this same logic was applied in a hospital / ER setting don't you think?

That's not an apt comparison.

Hospitals, doctors, and emergency rooms are already there. If someone presents with a serious injury, no matter the cause, he will be treated. That's what we would expect, and that's what will happen.

The essential point is that we cannot afford to have rescue teams everywhere someone might take extreme risks. If you want to engage in unusually risky activities in remote locations, you and others who wish to do the same need to pool your resources in some way and cover the potential costs of your rescue.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

S
So what do we do here?

Do we leave mountain climbers, rafters, surfers, etc to their own means when they get in trouble?

Do we put the government into the rescue business for everybody who wants to do something insanely dangerous?

Or do we put it somewhere in between and tax these guys through permits or make them pay for the helicopter ride when their day at the mountain/river/beach goes badly?


Cheers,
Mazo.

I think first off, make it illegal for novices without permits and training certificates for some of these incredibly risky activities. With heavy fines, jail time if it is done and you survive it!

Might as well make it mandatory to put a certain amount of money / down payment, or monthly fee if you want to hike in risky mountainous areas, and if you want to surf dangerous waters.

There can be a solution to this if we look hard enough.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Ok, so maybe we should legalize drugs

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I think first off, make it illegal for novices without permits and training certificates for some of these incredibly risky activities. With heavy fines, jail time if it is done and you survive it!

Yeah, make things illegal...kind of like we have with drugs. That'll fix it. Everyone will end up in jail.