Avalanche tragedy in BC - here we go again!

NR really, avalanche deaths remind you of coal mining in China?  That is just bizarre. 

The back country in BC is dangerous at this time of the year.  The heli-ski company should be sent the bill for every last dime of public money spent to rescue this clients from its inherently dangerous business.  They need to insure their business fully not use the public rescue services for free.

Yes, I'm sure the Chinese miners would have opted for a less hazardous job if they had the choice. We also have a guy lost in the Parc de la Gaspésie, and there is a major snowstorm in Eastern Québec and much of the Atlantic provinces - he decided to take off alone, apart from his group of friends. Although he has a sleeping bag and food supplies, it seems odd.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The heli-ski company should be sent the bill for every last dime of public money spent to rescue this clients from its inherently dangerous business.  They need to insure their business fully not use the public rescue services for free.

And I suppose skiers, generally, should be sent a bill "for every last dime of public money" spent to aid them if they get in an accident, because skiing is a dangerous -- and wholly unecessary -- activity.

And I would also suppose that people who neglect their health by doing no exercise and overeating should be sent a bill "for every last dime of public money" spent to send ambulances to save them when they are flailing on the ground with heart attacks that they are responsible for, due to their own irresponsibility.

My, what righteous indignation, kropotkin...

Besides, I would imagine that the heli-company and its owners pay more in taxes annually than you could even imagine paying yourself...

Sven I actually think that no one should be charged but they have started charging people who are out of bounds at ski resorts.  This company should have proper insurance to cover the risk of their private business.  Who knows what causes avalanches in heli-ski areas but I know that you have to fly in to take the risk.  This is not the fire department answering a call this is search and rescue crews with all their equipment like helicopters. Not for someone who drove off a road or had an accident but to rescue someone who paid money for a thrill.  Why should I insure that risk in this capitalist society.

No you miss the point. It is not the people who are using the search and rescue it is the business. Part of their business model is taking people to remote locations to engage in an inherently risky pastime.  The company needs to cover all the costs of that enterprise.  The people like the German tourists needs to be charged enough to pay for insurance for the COMPANY to be able to reimburse our public search and rescue teams it is their business model that has introduced the risk not human being.  I for one don't buy the crap that a corporation is a person and should be treated as one. 

This German tourist does not get to Jumbo Glacier except in the company helicopter.  His party of skiers could have paid an extra 50 or 100 bucks to get proper insurance but they didn't. It all about insuring the companies risk.

Sven wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why should I insure that risk in this capitalist society.

I suppose I feel the same way about having to help pay for the astronomical costs associated with the poor health of the 35%+ of people who are obese, the vast majority of whom are in that condition due to their own irresponsibility. They are being no less selfish than the capitalist heli-company by imposing the costs of their poor health decisions on those who make better choices.

Sven, this comment is offensive on several levels and is not an appropriate response to kropotkin's comment. Not only is it highly insulting to people who struggle with their weight, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues around obesity and betrays an ignorance and bigotry that violates the spirit of babble.

This is not up for discussion. Do not use this offensive pov to frame an argument again.

Sven wrote:

 does "the spirit of babble" mean that individuals have no agency over their own lives and are simply beings that are acted upon by external forces beyond their control?

It seems to me that the heii-skiers in this instance were acted upon by statistically predicable external forces beyond their control. Which is why they should be required to insure against the cost of having to rescue them.

As for your obesity shit . Well I would like to lose 20 pounds and the stupid charts say I should lose 50 but the latter no matter how much I would like it to happen and how successful I have been in other areas of my life, its not going to happen. If you know so little about diet and nutrition maybe you should just shut your pie hole on the subject.

If someone disregards a no skiing sign and chooses to ski in banned areas then I think they should be held financially accountable for a determined amount of the rescue costs if it comes to that.

 

 

 

I don't have a good answer for you Unionist. I ski but I'm not very knowledgeable about skiing and I've never been to any extreme sking destinations like those found in BC.   If I had to guess I would say that the banning of certain areas is very dependent on constantly changing weather conditions and the local resorts "best guess".  I'm not sure how that would work with the law and legislation. 

Provinvial parks (Sandbanks in Picton Ontario) can give fines for different violations (open alcohol, firebans, cutting trees) because it's a park controled by the province.  Ski resports are private owned aren't they?  I really don't know how it could work.

I'm not sure about fines for skiing on banned areas (perhaps a year banned from the resort?) but I think if a skier went off trail, needed rescuing by search and rescue and ended up having to pay the province $10'000 or $20'000 for fuel, ages, maintence costs etc.. people might think twice about disregarding the banned areas.

Were they out of bounds?

I didn't watch the video clip, but it did not say so in the story. But yes, I think that should be the measure for charging people for search and rescue. If an area is deemed safe then there's no reason why people shouldn't be in there, enjoying themselves, nor why businesses (many of which are local ventures) shouldn't be in there too.

On the other hand, one presumes these companies have insurance. If a lot of S and R time and effort goes into that one would think that should kick in. After all, different rules apply for corporations for all sorts of things - some bad, but some good and appropriate.

And it is especially so when you consider that rescuers can put themselves in danger by doing their jobs.

One other thing that is probably a bigger problem is how technology allows some people to get into back country who are probably unprepared for it. ATVs, motorboats and seadoos, and modern snowmobiles in particular have are a problem both when it comes to some people getting themselves into danger, and in terms of impact on wildlife and the environment. People used to have to work and have experience to get that far into the bush. Now some people can rip up trails and do it within an hour or so.

On an unrelated note. This is pretty minor when one considers that if your house burns down in any rural area where firefighting is not part of municipal services, you get a bill for it.

And I think the guy was from Karlsruehe not whatever that misspelling was.

Sadly, they found the body of the Pont-Rouge (Québec City suburb) man who set off by himself from a skiing and hiking trip in the Chic-Choc mountains in the Gaspé. Of course we have nothing as high as the mountains in BC, but they are among the highest mountains in Québec and there was a hell of a lot of snow. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/02/24/quebec-bertrand-...