VT - Dear Joey's Fuck you Pay me

[Johnny Law]

So assuming you don't get home delivery of the Rutland Herald, its the NY times of VT LOL, a mother fuck ton of people got lost at Killy and required professional extraction.

 

It was mostly over Christmas break and was certainly helped by the truly excellent base but around 22 people had to get pulled out of the woods in two weekends. Every single one of them was non-VT, Massholes, CT, NJ, NY.

 

Well this pissed alot of people off and in response came a VT house bill that would;

1. ski resorts liable for the rescue of a skier that has left its boundaries and needs rescue.

2. ski resorts can add a fee onto their ticket prices to defray their potential costs

3. making each skier liable for their rescue and allows resorts to then
turnaround and try to recover costs from the rescued person.

 

4. No more than 500$ for skier rescue

 

I don't like this, I know it sucks to pay for stupid fuck heads but if one person dies because they didn't want to be charged $500 than it simply can not be supported.

 

I like EC BC insurance, everybody pays a couple of bucks on each lift ticket, the money goes into a statewide pot to pay for rescues of the mighty joey.

 

Thoughts ?

[moe ghoul]

There's no one solution fits all, but adding language to the ticket and a tiny surcharge on the tickets is prolly the easiest way to go with this. I don't think this needs to be statewide, but local where the most rescues occur, like Kmart area. Trying to collect $500 for a rescue from some brokeass kid is a waste of $$, but they can try. They'd have to be able to have an enforceability angle for out of staters, like out of state speeding tix can get your license suspended kinda enforcement.

[sibhusky]

Where we ski, a different group is responsible for out of bounds rescues. Ski patrol might help since they're good folks, but Flathead Search and Rescue is officially in charge of those rescues. Signs tell you this AND that because it is a non-resort group that there could be a substantial delay... And that you are financially liable.

 

We get some of these dingbats, even including the ones who, when told to stay put because their cellphone is miraculously working, continue to move into worse and worse terrain.

Edited February 20, 2013 by sibhusky

[NMSKI]

Initial thought is that if you get yourself into trouble it should be your responsibility to cover the rescue costs, but since collectibility is an issue probably most of the time, whats another couple bucks added onto the price of an $80 lift ticket.

[sibhusky]

So basically, you're making 95% of skiers pay for these twirps. Personally, I'd rather bump up the cost of the rescue for each rescued party to cover the uncollected stuff.

Edited February 20, 2013 by sibhusky

[RidgeRacer]

Vermont is so quick to legislate but that's Vermont I guess.

 

Ultimately it's a no win situation. It'll end up costing the consumer no matter what you do. I like #3. The fool venturing off into places where they have no business being should be responsible (for thier rescue and the replacement of thier starter jacket complete with matching hat and gloves). Mountains do their job by providing ski area boundary warning signs but if someone doesn't heed that warning then its on them. That's like a thief trying to break into someone elses car the thief suing because he cut himself on the glass while breaking in. My suggestion, buy a lesson, stay inbounds and tip your freaking instructor.

[moe ghoul]

Initial thought is that if you get yourself into trouble it should be your responsibility to cover the rescue costs, but since collectibility is an issue probably most of the time, whats another couple bucks added onto the price of an $80 lift ticket.

 

 

So basically, you're making 95% of skiers pay for these twirps.

 

Since collectibility/enforceability can be difficult and possibly costly, maybe the state has an average total cost/yr SAR that can be used as the number needed for funding and divide that into the average number of tickets sold/season. That should keep the increase in ticket costs below a dollar. Hoping to recover the costs from individual skiers ain't gonna work. Better than taking it out of VT taxpayers pockets.

 

RING....RING:

 

SAR: Hello, Rutland SAR...

 

JerseyJoe: YO,man, we're lost in da woods and need help quick!

 

SAR: We'll be happy to assist you. Please provide us a credit card number for the $500 charge if you wish to be rescued.............

[indiggio]

Make lift ticket prices dependent upon state of slider's (or guardian's thereof) driver's license...

[RootDKJ]

I doubt that a new set of laws will change anything. You can't legislate stupid away.

[sibhusky]

 

 

RING....RING:

 

SAR: Hello, Rutland SAR...

 

JerseyJoe: YO,man, we're lost in da woods and need help quick!

 

SAR: We'll be happy to assist you. Please provide us a credit card number for the $500 charge if you wish to be rescued.............

There ya go.

[Johnny Law]

First of all we are talking like less than a dollar on a 90 some odd dollar ticket.

 

Second of all this isn't about keeping people out of trouble its about paying for it. Joey's are going to do what joey's do.

 

Lastly a distinction has to be made between peeps leaving the resort and BC skiers doing their thing in a dangerous environment.

 

Charging prepared people who run into trouble on the rock pile or Marcy cone is just stupid, these are dangerous environments in which every possible problem cannot be planned for. A highly experienced tourer on TGR ran into serious trouble on the rock pile when first gen dyna inserts failed, that ain't something you can prepare for. He needed the helicopter and that shit ain't cheap but I don't see why he should be paying some kind of fine.

 

The absolute most important thing is that people not be killed or injured, the cost is minor and secondary. All you hardcore take care of yourself types I bet don't tour and don't understand how fucking fast this shit can turn on you through no fault of your own. Puffery......

[NMSKI]

First of all we are talking like less than a dollar on a 90 some odd dollar ticket.

 

Second of all this isn't about keeping people out of trouble its about paying for it. Joey's are going to do what joey's do.

 

Lastly a distinction has to be made between peeps leaving the resort and BC skiers doing their thing in a dangerous environment.

 

Charging prepared people who run into trouble on the rock pile or Marcy cone is just stupid, these are dangerous environments in which every possible problem cannot be planned for. A highly experienced tourer on TGR ran into serious trouble on the rock pile when first gen dyna inserts failed, that ain't something you can prepare for. He needed the helicopter and that shit ain't cheap but I don't see why he should be paying some kind of fine.

 

The absolute most important thing is that people not be killed or injured, the cost is minor and secondary. All you hardcore take care of yourself types I bet don't tour and don't understand how fucking fast this shit can turn on you through no fault of your own. Puffery......

 

I agree that a distinction should be made. I have to imagine that the total cost of rescuing prepared people when shit turns dangerous is almost inconsequential because there are far fewer rescues. Not sure how it would work, but maybe SAR should make the call whether or not to pursue charging people for rescue on a case by case basis. Let experiences tourers slide, shit happens, but charge Jersey Joe enough to pay for all the rescues.

[Ride Delaware ?]

The absolute most important thing is that people not be killed or injured, the cost is minor and secondary. All you hardcore take care of yourself types I bet don't tour and don't understand how fucking fast this shit can turn on you through no fault of your own. Puffery......

I am assuming that this bill is directly associated with costs that result from rescues leading from inbound terrain? Aren't backcountry rescues outside of ski resort areas rescued from a different organization that is largely composed of volunteers? I am not a tourer, so I am not exactly sure how Northeast touring rescue works.

 

I don't want anyone to perish in an accident doing the sport they love, and because of this, it's a tough situation. That being said, touring is a decision, as is backcountry, and as is inbounds skiing. It is a decision you make. Therefore you should know the risks associated and the potential rescue that occurs. If one person is free climbing a sheer 500' rock wall in the middle of nowhere, I don't think that I should have to pay anything for their rescue. Like you have said, you'll likely have to pay for it in someway, down the road. I don't like the concept of having to pay for someone's rescue because of a decision they made. However, it does need to be paid for somehow, and I think that the only way the actual consumer pays anything is if a dollar is tacked on to each lift ticket.

 

There is no easy solution, and therefore that's why there is a bill for it in the general assembly. Like I said, assuming this is for ski areas only, I think the best solution is a slight increase levied by the ski resort and set aside for rescues. It should have it's own budget line so it can be billed appropriately. It should be a zero sum game for rescues. However, I think that the only easy way to do a backcountry rescue fund is through some type of tax. If someone only tours and doesn't inbound often, then they aren't even paying the $1 for their rescue.

 

It's not going to affect me either way, so I'll continue to ride accordingly. The only thing I'll see out of it is a slightly higher lift ticket price and a bunch of joeys I'll call idiots when they show up in the newspaper. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

 

That's my $.02...

Edited February 20, 2013 by Ride Delaware ?

[RootDKJ]

I agree that a distinction should be made. I have to imagine that the total cost of rescuing prepared people when shit turns dangerous is almost inconsequential because there are far fewer rescues. Not sure how it would work, but maybe SAR should make the call whether or not to pursue charging people for rescue on a case by case basis. Let experiences tourers slide, shit happens, but charge Jersey Joe enough to pay for all the rescues.

Who makes the distinctions? What happens to those who are unable/unwilling to pay the fine?

[moe ghoul]

Who makes the distinctions? What happens to those who are unable/unwilling to pay the fine?

SAR shouldn't be put in the position to make those calls and chasing deadbeats is costly. That's why it needs to be charged at the door and everyone bears a fraction of the cost. And it should be done locally, if the joeys are 90% of the problem around Kmart then let them pay the surcharge. No need for every other resort to charge as well unless they experience a problem.

[NMSKI]

Who makes the distinctions? What happens to those who are unable/unwilling to pay the fine?

 

SAR would be responsible for making the distinction.

 

As far as collecting the fine goes, you could make it work the same way a hospital bill does since you could compare being rescued to emergency medical care. Try to set up a payment plan and if someone doesn't pay it ruins their credit, garnishment suit, etc.

 

Not sure that this exactly works though, so much easier to charge more for lift tickets.

[Johnny Law]

SAR in the EC is Stowe Mountain Rescue, big dogs, real professionals, they have the helicopter. You only see these guys in big problems or around Stowe.

 

Keene Valley Hose and Ladder Wilderness Response team, not as big as SMR but they have alot of real legit professionals.

 

New Hampshire Fish and Game has some kind of team as well.

 

The rest is a loose consortium of randoms who like to do good things in life. Regardless all of them are volunteers with the possible exception of the main dude at SMR.

 

They work with National Forest service, RMC, AMC, ADK rangers and about a billion other groups, AVSAR, Mt Rescue Service, New England K-9, Mt. W Volunteer Ski Patrol, Upper Valley Wilderness Response Team, Pemigewasset Valley SAR.

 

All of them with the exception of a few individuals are volunteers who have a wide variety of other jobs and for some reason like to help others. As far as I know they do not really complain rather its the state and towns who have to pay for there work that are salty.

[Schif]

SAR would be responsible for making the distinction.

 

As far as collecting the fine goes, you could make it work the same way a hospital bill does since you could compare being rescued to emergency medical care. Try to set up a payment plan and if someone doesn't pay it ruins their credit, garnishment suit, etc.

 

Not sure that this exactly works though, so much easier to charge more for lift tickets.

It would be easy for SAR to make the distinction, and equally easy for that kind of thing to not hold up in court unfortunately.

 

An extra quarter on a lift ticket wouldn't be the end of the world, but on principle it annoys me that I would have to pay for some guy in jeans from Passaic NJ to get out of a situation he shouldn't have been in. However I can also say that I wouldn't be all that upset if I paid half a buck or something to help out some guy who took all the right precautions, and the situation turned on him. Double edged sword there.

 

I think there should be a little study done to determine where and how often per year these rescues take place, and determine roughly how much money would be spent each year on those rescues. Then each mountain could put a surcharge, maybe $1-2 on season passes, and $.25 on daily tickets until that amount is collected and then put it in the bank. Pay out of the fund for rescues until it gets low, and then start surcharging again to fill the account. Then there isn't a tax on every single person to use the mountain all year, but the money would still be available if need be.

[AtomicSkier]

First of all it doesn't surprise me that most of these Joeys live outside Vermont cause there are 50 million people in the northeast and 600,000 people in Vermont. Plus most Vermonters are poor and don't ski. I think a personal should be responsible for their search and rescue expenses and I'm sure there is private insurance for that type of thing. Why should the 99% of people myself included who don't ski out of bounds be responsible to subsidize these people. If somebody needs to be helicoptered off of mount Washington or mount Mikovits they should pay just the same as if you get hurt at blue and need ambulance or helicopter service you will be billed for it.

 

hah! the only difference is at Blue you're injured and need an ambulance...both of the local ambulance co's don't participate in Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If/When I get hurt at Blue, I'm refusing to take a non-participating provider...or, just say you can't feel from your neck down...the chopper will be on its way (and they take bc/bs)

[RidgeRacer]

So funny how this is like the skiing version of "distribution of wealth". While I'm not fan of the concept in real life, in this instance it almost makes sense. I'm OK with it provided that a) the cost of charging it up front is minuscule and b - its only charged (as moe mentions) at resorts with a high Joey population (like k Mart). But as schif mentioned "the Joey tax" is hard to accept on principle alone which is why I would avoid places like K Mart like the plague. That being said... Stupid Joeys!

Edited February 20, 2013 by Ridge Racer

[RidgeRacer]

I'm saying when you get hurt at Blue you or your insurance company has to pay for it. Shouldn't it be the same for a search and rescue?

Welcome back and I agree.

[toast21602]

I'm saying when you get hurt at Blue you or your insurance company has to pay for it. Shouldn't it be the same for a search and rescue?

 

Absolutely not. Health insurance pays for healthcare, and shouldn't pay for somebody to be found in the middle of Vermont. Having health insurance gives you medical coverage, not stupidity coverage. Let these people pay for their rescue and if they need to seek medical treatment because of it, let their health insurance pay for that. All that this would do is contribute to the already inflated healthcare crisis by increasing insurance premiums if health insurance companies "covered" search and rescue - which is so far out of their responsibility.

 

Welcome back and I agree.

 

That's like saying your car insurance company should pay for your new tires on your car. Not their responsibility. It's yours.

[RidgeRacer]

 

Absolutely not. Health insurance pays for healthcare, and shouldn't pay for somebody to be found in the middle of Vermont. Having health insurance gives you medical coverage, not stupidity coverage. Let these people pay for their rescue and if they need to seek medical treatment because of it, let their health insurance pay for that. All that this would do is contribute to the already inflated healthcare crisis by increasing insurance premiums if health insurance companies "covered" search and rescue - which is so far out of their responsibility.

 

 

 

That's like saying your car insurance company should pay for your new tires on your car. Not their responsibility. It's yours.

Oh I agree. I thought he was referring to injuries incurred from skiing out of bounds resulting in the search and rescue.

[toast21602]

What about special rescue insurance that individuals who go in the backcountry can carry.

 

that's a better solution that putting the cost on the rest of those who are medically insured.

[sibhusky]

It exists. I have it associated with our Spot.