nwillz Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/30/stranded_scugog_ice_fisherman_first_to_be_charged_for_fire_department_rescue_539278.html Thought some people might enjoy this. Lots of grey areas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 I don't think they needed all those rescue units to help him out of the mud at the shore line . They over do it sometimes. It's a slippery slope ....unloading services to a user fee service . They are paid for the day anyway and are trained to rescue people in trouble . Will they start charging people who fell down a bank while skiing , after all , the skier didn't have to go skiing ....or snowmobiling , or hiking......or canoeing etc etc etc...... where do we draw the line ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 In this instance, and the recent rescue on Simcoe, local authorities had been issuing public warnings about ice safety. That would be the basis of the court argument. Half of me feels this can be excessive, but... Good friends have been, and family members are currently, involved in marine rescue. It sickens me every time I hear they have to risk their lives because of a fool who couldn't check the marine forecast or who ignored public warnings by the authorities. I also still remember, quite clearly, occasions in the 70's and 80's where I have gone searching for people lost on the lake. Of waiting til spring to drag a lake bottom up north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChefMick Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 WHOA???? 51 man hours....who pays when the kitty gets stuck up the tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwillz Posted January 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Pretty crazy, the government and the town council should be reviewing this. Im pretty sure if you accidentally burn down your house there is no personal charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakeman4 Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 I don't think they needed all those rescue units to help him out of the mud at the shore line . They over do it sometimes. It's a slippery slope ....unloading services to a user fee service . They are paid for the day anyway and are trained to rescue people in trouble . Will they start charging people who fell down a bank while skiing , after all , the skier didn't have to go skiing ....or snowmobiling , or hiking......or canoeing etc etc etc...... where do we draw the line ? Actually out west, if a skier/snowboarder goes "off the beaten track" and gets seriously hurt or lost, he/she is the one responsible for the bill. They have clearly marked out of bounds locations and markers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_b Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Three fire trucks for two hours: $3,000.00 One standby fire truck for 1.5 hours: $750.00 Fifteen firefighters for two hours: $966.30 Fourteen firefighters for 1.5 hours: $676.48They probably knew they were gonna charge for it and sent the whole department out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Pretty crazy, the government and the town council should be reviewing this. Im pretty sure if you accidentally burn down your house there is no personal charge. If there was it was eaten up by your insurance. The bill is certainly excessive. There was no need to call in the entire Pt Perry FD for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niagarangler89 Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Actually out west, if a skier/snowboarder goes "off the beaten track" and gets seriously hurt or lost, he/she is the one responsible for the bill. They have clearly marked out of bounds locations and markers though. Regardless of the 'clearly marked' out of bounds locations/markers, it's inevitable that someone takes a wrong turn and winds up lost (all unintentionally). If that were you, would you really want to be stuck with the bill? Bill said it best.."It's a slippery slope unloading public/emerg services to a user fee service" How far are we willing to slide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveC Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Certainly they should be fined. But i agree...where do you draw the line? Many people take risk...the guy who drove drunk and caused a car accident....the jet skiers rescued from the niagara river....the list is endless. Nothing wrong with a fine lets say ,but lots of people do stupid stuff in hindsight knowing they could have made a better choice. He should get it overturned if he challanges it in court. Emergency service workers risk thier lives daily....goes with the job. Police risk thier lives in attending a domestic dispute...do we charge a fee everytime emergency workers risk thier own life? A substantial fine....i agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 $5400 for getting lost and injured coming off the lake, this is a disgusting money grab and Scugog twp should be ashamed. Whats next, a poor kid gets lost in the woods and we charge $10, 000 for a serch and rescue, soon only the rich will be able to afford to get rescued. As for the rescue on Simcoe last year Innisfill billed each person $200, which was more of a suggestion then a bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marktheperchman Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 if you venture out on ice after warnings have been posted and you have to be rescued i feel you should have some sort of monetary fine but not in excess of five g's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 What a great gift this is for the lawyers ! That will make the line up for the criminal cases much longer .....more money for the legal eagles . If a smoker gets careless , like smoking in bed & burns the house down we are all affected by the never ending raise of insurance costs . Should that smoker be charged all the fees to put out the fire ? We pay taxes to have these services , should we pay twice ? Last week ,while fishing the Rec.canal & Martindale , I checked the ice with my spud and suddenly I was on 1" -1.5" of ice !! I turned back where the ice was 4", to fish safely . I could have went through if I didn't check the ice & may have needed help getting out . Later that day I saw others who were unaware of the ice thickness , walking on that 1" ice . Thankfully , they didn't go through . We better watch what we wish for , they would like nothing better than to pass on the tax based services on to the user .......and where the wheel stops , nobody knows ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botchegalupe Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 I was in the RCN for 23 years and have participated in dozens of rescues at sea, I don't have any sympathy for individuals who go out on bad ice, but getting lost in fog should be considered an act-of-God not subject to rescue fees. This is nothing more than a cash grab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainonion Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 A bit excessive. Two or three firefighters could have did the job rather than the whole fleet. I agree with the fine but not the amount they are throwing out. He should have just called a friend with a rope if he was only up to his waist in mud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topwaterjoe Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 if you venture out on ice after warnings have been posted and you have to be rescued i feel you should have some sort of monetary fine but not in excess of five g's Agreed. Make is a misdemeanor. Careless ice anglers get a ticket and choose whether or not they can contest it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Wait until essential services becomes privatized. Imagine it; "Drifter's Search and Rescue...LOWEST Price Guarantee!" ( Not Guaranteed! ) We already pay for every trip in an ambulance. $45 + HST. You can even "rent-a-cop" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 A bit excessive. Two or three firefighters could have did the job rather than the whole fleet. I agree with the fine but not the amount they are throwing out. He should have just called a friend with a rope if he was only up to his waist in mud. People will try calling friends for help rather than call 911 in fear of getting a whopping bill to pay . That may lead to more deaths from inexperienced people trying to save a friend or family member . This case could be a "test" to see how far they can go to unload the services to private companies . Don't expect to see a tax decrease when they do it . Insurance companies can put more riders on our policies to cover emergency services for both homes and vehicles to cover the extra fees .....open up the wallet a little wider ...... we need a smiley choking another one......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogaloo Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 Before I can formulate an opinion on the need for multiple rescue units I have to think how "call for assistance" turns into life or death. Picture this, a man calls 911 because he is a bit of a panic, the operator relays this message to police and rescue and the "panic" is escalated. The police and fire unit ops now relay to responders and the seriousness is multiplied once more. By the time everyone gets rolling, they are not sure what they are in for until they arrive on site and some units are able to stand down. They had already been dispatched, ergo the charges for services. Myself..........I have no sympathies for the man. Alone, on bad ice, no compass and few brains. My .02 ..............Boog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Scolaro Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 I have to agree with boogaloo on this on this one.Warnings are issued for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Ok, so when there are warnings that the roads are really bad and someone drives, gets in a accident because of the bad conditions. Should they be billed as well? People always drive in conditions which are warned not to drive, always accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 People take unneccesary risks , sometime influenced by booze etc. and they end up in a bad situation . Our trained rescuers have to deal with all of them whether the people did a stupid thing or not . If we start charging people for acts that are considered stupid we better start writing the laws where it applies & how much the rescue costs will be ect . We could simply privatize all of our services and pay the fee each time we use them if that is what the majority would like to see ......a very slippery slope indeed ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Ok, so when there are warnings that the roads are really bad and someone drives, gets in a accident because of the bad conditions. Should they be billed as well? People always drive in conditions which are warned not to drive, always accidents. In that circumstance, you might not get fined, but your insurance might disallow your claim after an acident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niagarangler89 Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Picture this, a man calls 911 because he is a bit of a panic, the operator relays this message to police and rescue and the "panic" is escalated. The police and fire unit ops now relay to responders and the seriousness is multiplied once more. By the time everyone gets rolling, they are not sure what they are in for until they arrive on site and some units are able to stand down. They had already been dispatched, ergo the charges for services. I hope that's not how the process unfolded. In my eyes, emergency operators and first responders should be as emotionally neutral as possible when dealing with these types of situations...precisely because of the hypothetical scenario you just suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogaloo Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 I hope that's not how the process unfolded. In my eyes, emergency operators and first responders should be as emotionally neutral as possible when dealing with these types of situations...precisely because of the hypothetical scenario you just suggested. Yes, my scenario was completely hypothetical, and it is my hope that these reactions do not take place but remember, we are dealing with humans, with human emotions. Anything can happen and none of us were on the receiving end of any of those calls. For the record, although I stated no sympathies, I do not agree with the amount the man was billed................Boog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.