0
JALUV2

pepperell tree landing being billed 10grand

Recommended Posts

Quote

It seems to me that if a rescue services organization run by local, state, or federal government wants to charge for services, then they should have to explicitly declare what is or is not "covered" by the tax payer before hand. Otherwise, especially in these economic times, the temptation to cherry pick opportunities to dump the burden become too great.

If the person was negligent then charge them with reckless endangerment or some kind of crime. Rescue services should not be a punitive device. Rescue services are in the business of saving lives. Leave the social engineering to the legislature that makes laws.



Quite right!

I wonder what is the legal basis for the city to bill an individual. Perhaps cities already have the ability to do that legally. I wonder how the case would go if a person doesn't pay and defends that position aggressively.

So many hypothetical situations to consider, so many instances where people could be considered negligent, or where people could be judged as doing unnecessarily risky things.

I would hope that such arbitrary decisions about who should have to pay wouldn't stand up well in court. Fire departments aren't a private business trying to make a profit, and their equipment and regularly employed people are going to be there and on duty even if nobody needs help. So the only costs incurred are expendables and any extra equipment maintenance. That assumes people on-call people did not have to be brought in, and that other municipalities did not have to cover calls during the time their resources were busy. A cynical person could say that the emergency calls serve as training opportunities.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think there are some very relevant differences between putting out fires/responding to car accidents and rescuing this guy from the tree. Namely the issue of choice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess you missed the reference to people being "Irresponsible" and being billed for it. i.e. leaving a candle going, smoking in bed or needing a rescue after crashing while driving like an idiot. They don't bill for these, why should they for a skydiver?



In terms of fires, which you have referenced several times, the owner of the structure on fire pays property taxes to that municipality on that property, and those taxes go toward paying for police and fire departments to protect the property. That's why they don't get charged seperately, they're already paying the bill even before the fire.

In terms of auto accidents, it does get a little fuzzier there, but I think the bottom line is that automoblie transportation is a given in this country, and the risk associated is an accpeted part of life. If a municipality wants to have roads that run through it, providing an avenue (no pun intended) for consumers to come in to the city, and they want to accept state or federal funds to help maintain those roads, then they need to be willing to accept the costs related to possible accidents within their borders. They also have the option to lower speed limits and increase enforcement to minimize the number and scope of those accidents, thus limiting the financial outlay of the 'clean up'.

While I don't like the idea of it, I have trouble blaming the city for wanting to bill a person from another city, who comes in to town, engages in a high-risk recreational activity, and then requires the use of city resources to save themselves from harm. I do think that the costs should be closely watched, and that the tax income the DZ provides should be considered in determining the final bill to the injured party. It shouldn't be a 'free for all' for the city to profit off of the rescue, and shouldn't be billed at the commercial rate of hiring private tree climbers and ambulance services, but if you're going to jump, you need to be responsible for the risks, to include the cost of rescue and health care if an incident should occur.

That said, the jumper should hire a lawyer and fight case. I don't think there was an agreement in place to exchange money for rescue services. Even if it's not dismissed, it will get the charges closely examined, and most likely significantly reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever decisions are made on who pays for what in which jurisdiction, it still comes down to the issue of being informed before one receives a service, what kind of bill one might be facing.

The price tag should be on the item so to speak. No sudden surprise $10,000 bills in the mail.

(Obviously there are limitations in medical emergencies etc but the principle still stands.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

coming from our government this is no surprise to me. they have been taking our money for all of our lives, what makes you think they wont get as much as they can???




...and we get absolutely nothing FOR that money do we. :S:ph34r:




Could the money be better spent is of course a rhetorical question...lots of the 'fat' could and should be trimmed. We're running the whole show on credit, but that's not the point of THIS discussion.

In the current real world, services are being downgraded and cut altogether across the board.

In my community we have less than 1/2 the police officers we did when I moved here 13 years ago and the city has nearly doubled in size.
In the small town my mother lives in they laid-off almost the entire fire department and went volunteer...the choice was no firemen, no cops, or none of either in the very near future.

Trust me, they ain't pullin' cats outta trees these days...there is no money for the type of services we've become accustomed to but plainly are not 'entitled' to without further tax burden.

Yes it's a bit of a 'slippery slope' deciding who is to get what, when and why, but for things like pulling a skydiver out of a tree, towing a sea-craft in that was carelessly run out of fuel, or yanking Tabby out of a tree for granny...common sense says yer probably gonna have to buck up something.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Trust me, they ain't pullin' cats outta trees these days...there is no money for the type of services we've become accustomed to but plainly are not 'entitled' to without further tax burden.



In the UK recently there was discussion about fire crews rescuing cats from trees. They interviewed the local fire department who said that actually if it was not busy it provided an excellent "real world" training environment. As someone who has always been puzzled by the "waste" of firemen rescuing cats that really made alot of sense to me and changed my views.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with your views before - so as it is a first here's :D. You can't selectively bill people because money is tight. I see your argument about recreation but then it should be city policy regarding ALL recreation - so the kid riding around the block on his bicycle for fun should also be billed.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, the jumper should hire a lawyer and fight case. I don't think there was an agreement in place to exchange money for rescue services. Even if it's not dismissed, it will get the charges closely examined, and most likely significantly reduced.




That would be the prudent thing to do, if/when billed for such services require a line item breakdown and move for some kind of mediation to decide if all that was billed for was necessary and fair regarding cost.

And one may take this example as reason to inquire about services and costs...I know for a fact in my community the Fire-Rescue will cut you out of the car and transport the critical, but if ya got whiplash and wanna go to the ER, they call you a private transport ambulance and you pay for it.

If you are found guilty of arson, you pay the fire department for their time and effort...boy THAT one cut down on a lotta local kids playing with fire, one 4 alarm incident was in the 6 figures a couple years ago.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

coming from our government this is no surprise to me. they have been taking our money for all of our lives, what makes you think they wont get as much as they can???




...and we get absolutely nothing FOR that money do we. :S:ph34r:




Could the money be better spent is of course a rhetorical question...lots of the 'fat' could and should be trimmed. We're running the whole show on credit, but that's not the point of THIS discussion.

In the current real world, services are being downgraded and cut altogether across the board.

In my community we have less than 1/2 the police officers we did when I moved here 13 years ago and the city has nearly doubled in size.
In the small town my mother lives in they laid-off almost the entire fire department and went volunteer...the choice was no firemen, no cops, or none of either in the very near future.

Trust me, they ain't pullin' cats outta trees these days...there is no money for the type of services we've become accustomed to but plainly are not 'entitled' to without further tax burden.

Yes it's a bit of a 'slippery slope' deciding who is to get what, when and why, but for things like pulling a skydiver out of a tree, towing a sea-craft in that was carelessly run out of fuel, or yanking Tabby out of a tree for granny...common sense says yer probably gonna have to buck up something.


well doesn't 10,000 dollars for getting someone out of a tree sound a bit ridiculous? i know how to climb trees and the equipment involved, and 10,000 is WAY too much money.
"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

coming from our government this is no surprise to me. they have been taking our money for all of our lives, what makes you think they wont get as much as they can???




...and we get absolutely nothing FOR that money do we. :S:ph34r:




Could the money be better spent is of course a rhetorical question...lots of the 'fat' could and should be trimmed. We're running the whole show on credit, but that's not the point of THIS discussion.

In the current real world, services are being downgraded and cut altogether across the board.

In my community we have less than 1/2 the police officers we did when I moved here 13 years ago and the city has nearly doubled in size.
In the small town my mother lives in they laid-off almost the entire fire department and went volunteer...the choice was no firemen, no cops, or none of either in the very near future.

Trust me, they ain't pullin' cats outta trees these days...there is no money for the type of services we've become accustomed to but plainly are not 'entitled' to without further tax burden.

Yes it's a bit of a 'slippery slope' deciding who is to get what, when and why, but for things like pulling a skydiver out of a tree, towing a sea-craft in that was carelessly run out of fuel, or yanking Tabby out of a tree for granny...common sense says yer probably gonna have to buck up something.


well doesn't 10,000 dollars for getting someone out of a tree sound a bit ridiculous? i know how to climb trees and the equipment involved, and 10,000 is WAY too much money.


I really don't know...it's sure a bill I wouldn't want to pay!

I'm not saying I agree with the billing or the amount, just that I understand the reasoning behind it.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Let's try to keep the discussion on the skydiving aspects of this and away from politics, please.



Okay...:D


When skydiving near trees, always have a helmet, gloves and a credit card! B|;)


Just get the dz to keep a chainsaw handy:P And don't forget the rumour that gloves caused all this in the first place!
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>well doesn't 10,000 dollars for getting someone out of a tree sound a
>bit ridiculous? i know how to climb trees and the equipment involved, and
>10,000 is WAY too much money.

Well, it's way too much if you just like climbing trees. I know enough about mountain rescue to get someone off most routes at Yosemite, for example. But saying that therefore a mountain rescue should be really cheap doesn't really make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This case here. $10,000 for 21 guys, 4 hours = $119 per person per hour. I know that there must have been a big red truck involed but Im going to have to start charging more money or get into the "pulling people out of tree busniess". If the agencies broke the bill down better, Charged for the truck call out and a fair rate for the 3 or 4 guys instead of 21. I wouldnt have such a knee jerk reaction. If I was the city manager and 21 guys put in a bill for that Id freak out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is...WHO called for the rescue? Did HE call for it? If not, why doesn't he just say "I didn't call you, why am I being billed for this????

Just don't pay the emmmerefffer ;)

I don't want to make all the decisions because if I screw up, then I can't blame it on you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>well doesn't 10,000 dollars for getting someone out of a tree sound a
>bit ridiculous? i know how to climb trees and the equipment involved, and
>10,000 is WAY too much money.

Well, it's way too much if you just like climbing trees. I know enough about mountain rescue to get someone off most routes at Yosemite, for example. But saying that therefore a mountain rescue should be really cheap doesn't really make sense.



i was just mentioning my experience with trees because i know the kind of real world work it would take. that's why i said 10,000 is too expensive because it isnt a very complicated process.

i seriously doubt they needed 21 people to get 1 guy out of a tree. i am not saying that it should cost $10, but 10k is a lot for the service that was rendered.
"Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pepperell is one of the DZs that I jump at.

It's a small-ish community, but a $10,000 bill, in the scheme of things, will not bankrupt the town. I'm of mixed thoughts on this. If you're a "people should be responsible for their own shit and government should stay out of my way" person, then I think you have to agree with billing him, unless he refused their services and they provided it anyway.


If you're a "government sometimes provides a common good and taxes people to do so", then you get his rescue free, but you have to put up with a bunch of other self-inflicted stuff that people do.

I'd propose a negligence standard here: if you aren't reasonable in what you're doing (what would a reasonable licensed skydiver do) then you have to pay for it. Doesn't sound like he was negligent, but...
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if this wasn't a tree (read, more "spectacular") rescue? What if it was instead a "routine" injury / ambulance call to the DZ? Are they also going to start billing for those?? Just because you are "choosing" / "voluntarily" taking part in a "high-risk sport" I don't think - should NEGATE your access to public (your own tax paid) services!! Where does - or will it end then? Off-road dirt-biker crashes? Etc., Etc. - Who decides then, what is "reasonable" and "acceptable" versus what is not??

Sure - for a falsified missing persons report, resulting in an UNNECESSARY Search and Rescue or such - as some other examples have been cited - send the "perpetrator" a bill. However, this jumper is NOT a perpetrator, and this (fire/rescue) is precisely what our (and presumably his - as a local citizen ...even if he weren't though, no matter) PUBLIC SERVICE tax $ are paid for! >:(

My .02

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for added further instance / fodder / food-for thought...

Wake-boarding, kite-surfing, water-skiing, scuba-diving, trail hiking etc., etc., activities also take place along even just the confines of Essex County (Gloucester, Manchester, Ipswich, Beverly, Rowley, Salem, etc.) all the time too. I grew up in that area (where all this is now - at least with this particular bill being charged) is hailing from. I've seen in my time there, some rather "involved" rescues have to take place as a result of ALL those activities. Should those folks requiring multiple services to pull them from the surf, or rescue them when they've fallen hiking the rocky shores areas around Rafe's Chasm - or trails of Agasis Rocks be billed for their rescue services too?

Think about it. Where does it end? And then who decides what is "acceptable" & when?
coitus non circum - Moab Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I'd propose a negligence standard here: if you aren't reasonable in what you're doing (what would a reasonable licensed skydiver do) then you have to pay for it. Doesn't sound like he was negligent, but...



So then you are having a whuffo (fire/police chief etc.) determining if how you got hurt was reasonable or not at an event they weren't even there for. Do you really want someone who thinks we are crazy, and has no idea of anything about jumping trying to determine if you had enough altitude to do a half brake turn to avoid the tree, had the proper body position on your PLF, or tried to do a high performance landing in winds that were 2mph over your skill level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In terms of auto accidents, it does get a little fuzzier there, but I think the bottom line is that automoblie transportation is a given in this country, and the risk associated is an accpeted part of life. If a municipality wants to have roads that run through it, providing an avenue (no pun intended) for consumers to come in to the city, and they want to accept state or federal funds to help maintain those roads, then they need to be willing to accept the costs related to possible accidents within their borders. They also have the option to lower speed limits and increase enforcement to minimize the number and scope of those accidents, thus limiting the financial outlay of the 'clean up'.



Some City's were planning on charging for emergency services *IF* you didn't live in the City. I know Dallas was planning to do this.

I don't really like it.... I think it is a perfect example of why I don't like taxes at all really. I pay taxes to cover this type of BS. Yes, I may not pay taxes in that municipality, but I also think my municipality should cover people who don't pay taxes here when they are here.

In my ideal little world you would have to pay the bill, but not taxes. Since we have to pay taxes... the bill should not have to be paid by an individual.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

i seriously doubt they needed 21 people to get 1 guy out of a tree.



Quite right!

The extras showed up because they were bored/saw it as an opportunity to get some training, even if just by watching others do it.

The guy that got rescued should charge the city for providing the training opportunity.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This could have all been avoided with a tree rescue team from the DZ. I guess this may not be practical at all DZs, but we have one. There are two of us at the DZ who climb or have climbed trees for a living. We communicate with each other if one will be missing a weekend so as to make sure the other will have their gear on sight. We have considered putting together a DZ climbing gear set so that we would not have to haul personals back and forth. This would be an option, along with some basic training, for a DZ that did not have climbers on staff.

This is really a necessity at our DZ as it is located in the town of lumberton and pine trees are everywhere. Although there are plenty of outs to be found, we still average climbing at least once for each cut away there, either for the canopy or free bag, sometimes both. Keeping the extra gear required to belay a jumper out of a tree is very minimal when you already have what you need to get up the tree.

In the 6 years that I have been jumping, my "team mate" and I have performed 4 tree rescues. One was on the edge of the highway where a fresh AFF graduate cleared all but the last tree to get back into the LZ. The police were quick to the scene after local traffic called it in. Upon arrival, the officer in charge quickly assessed that all was being handled. He helped with traffic and within 10 minutes the student and the canopy were safely on the ground. Then the police were happily on their way and no bill was issued.

I only read the first page of this thread so forgive me if this was already said. Now about what I did read, this is my $.02

1) Rescue service should be free

2) Those that choose to put themselves at risk should expect to pay for rescue services

3) I don't know where to draw the line between 1 & 2

4) 21 guys for 4 hours at $10.000 works out to ~$120 per hour. This is double the rate the same guys would be charging for the same gear and labor if they would be working in public sector rather than the government.

5) If it takes more than 2 guys for more than 1 hour to get someone out of a tree, there or either some very extenuating circumstances, or there are at least 2 guys there that do not know what the shit they are doing.

6) For the average tree rescue with a conscious rescue-e, start to finish is under 30 min if working by myself. With two people used to working together, one climbing and one on the ground, I would say 10 min.

7) I did not read the article. Extenuating circumstances may have applied, but I doubt 84 man hours worth.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0