Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 54 of total 54 in this topic |
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 3, 2011 - 04:26pm PT
|
The Alaskan Alpine Club has emailed and uploaded its proposal for eliminating the climbing taxes (fees) in the US, specifically those of Rainier and Denali National Parks....
http://AlaskanAlpineClub.org/ClimbingTaxes.html
Climbers might especially note the separate section on the Access Fund, down the page a ways.
The admitted goal of the Access Fund is fully funding the National Parks. That is NOT the goal of the climbers. A primary goal of climbers is to climb without government hassles and without being singled out as the only outdoor recreation group in the nation that must pay a special tax for the RIGHT to walk (climb) on PUBLIC land.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund the notoriously greedy, insatiable National Park Service bureaucracy, and the Access Fund is attempting that impossibility at the expense of climbers. Each time you buy products from a company that donates to the Access Fund, you are screwing-over the climbers, much to the delight of the Park Service cronies.
Alaskan Alpine Club members can laugh robustly. The power-damaged minds of the Park Service chaps, like all government sorts, know only more power and more money. Their minds have zero comprehension of human rights or any value in human rights. They and their Access Fund and American Alpine Club cronies will continue to attack human rights (the not-lawfully-taxable RIGHT to walk on public land) until the inherent human reaction. Kiss the National Park system goodby.
The Soviet leaders thought that communism was invincible, and the US leaders think that their DemocanRepublicrat War and Police Regime is invincible, like all such power-damaged minds. Pitiably ignorant sorts, clueless of history.
In the internet age, enough actual climbers will soon recognize what the Access Fund, American Alpine Club and other environmentalist cronies did to climbers and human rights. You cannot get away from those organizations fast enough if you are on record as supporting them while claiming to be a "climber".
The tourists who climb Denali and Rainier cannot escape becoming identified as a "Disgrace to the history of mountain climbing." Go ahead, try. Keep supporting the Park Service taxes on the RIGHT to walk on PUBLIC land. But wisely count the troops of the Park Service "Sheriff of Nottingham", versus the number of Americans who are belatedly starting to understand the value of their diminishing RIGHTS.
Respectfully, DougBuchanan, Alaskan Alpine Club paperwork guy
|
|
divad
Trad climber
wmass
|
|
I know its not public land, but I used to sneak into the Gunks when it was only a couple of bucks for a pass. Would this make me eligible for membership in the Alaskan Alpine Club?
|
|
Nohea
Trad climber
Sunny Aiea,Hi
|
|
Word Doug! Taxes are destruction.
|
|
pc
climber
|
|
^^^ Where are the rescue dollars going to come from? Spread the tax across all the park users? Just tax the rescue'ees? Not stirring the sh#t, just curious about possible alternatives/solutions.
pc
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
Nice use of adjectives (fallacy of Argument By Emotive Language, Argument By Vehemence) and taking matters out of context (another logical fallacy).
Less opinion and rhetoric and more facts would make a more compelling argument.
Taxes are a hot button issue with the right and libertarians, but user fees don't fall within the traditional definition of taxes -- despite your attempt to claim that they are specific levies used for general purposes (and where are the facts to support that conclusion)?
Nice Rant, as usual.
|
|
the kid
Trad climber
fayetteville, wv
|
|
take the tin foil off your tea party hat..
Access Fund does good work for the good of all climbers.
PAy the fee and get the services that go with it.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Live free Doug! Thanks for the update.
The Alaskan Alpine Club has emailed and uploaded its proposal for eliminating the climbing taxes (fees) in the US, specifically those of Rainier and Denali National Parks....
http://AlaskanAlpineClub.org/ClimbingTaxes.html
Climbers might especially note the separate section on the Access Fund, down the page a ways.
The admitted goal of the Access Fund is fully funding the National Parks. That is NOT the goal of the climbers. A primary goal of climbers is to climb without government hassles and without being singled out as the only outdoor recreation group in the nation that must pay a special tax for the RIGHT to walk (climb) on PUBLIC land.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund the notoriously greedy, insatiable National Park Service bureaucracy, and the Access Fund is attempting that impossibility at the expense of climbers. Each time you buy products from a company that donates to the Access Fund, you are screwing-over the climbers, much to the delight of the Park Service cronies.
Alaskan Alpine Club members can laugh robustly. The power-damaged minds of the Park Service chaps, like all government sorts, know only more power and more money. Their minds have zero comprehension of human rights or any value in human rights. They and their Access Fund and American Alpine Club cronies will continue to attack human rights (the not-lawfully-taxable RIGHT to walk on public land) until the inherent human reaction. Kiss the National Park system goodby.
The Soviet leaders thought that communism was invincible, and the US leaders think that their DemocanRepublicrat War and Police Regime is invincible, like all such power-damaged minds. Pitiably ignorant sorts, clueless of history.
In the internet age, enough actual climbers will soon recognize what the Access Fund, American Alpine Club and other environmentalist cronies did to climbers and human rights. You cannot get away from those organizations fast enough if you are on record as supporting them while claiming to be a "climber".
The tourists who climb Denali and Rainier cannot escape becoming identified as a "Disgrace to the history of mountain climbing." Go ahead, try. Keep supporting the Park Service taxes on the RIGHT to walk on PUBLIC land. But wisely count the troops of the Park Service "Sheriff of Nottingham", versus the number of Americans who are belatedly starting to understand the value of their diminishing RIGHTS.
Respectfully, DougBuchanan, Alaskan Alpine Club paperwork guy
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Effing Alasks scrounging bums trying to steal even MORE money from the rest of the climbing community of the US! They got all the mountains over 15k, they want all the money, all the guiding, all the profits, none of the expenses associated with it.....everyone else pays for it, they get all the profit.
what percentage of the taxes that they pay do they get back? OVER 100%!!!!
WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY GRIPING ABOUT! THEY WANT MORE???
Effing welfare bums.
Get a job Buchanan, stop living off the dole.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
...user fees don't fall within the traditional definition of taxes...
This is correct, since only the users are subject to these fees.
In another regard; the fact that these fees are imposed by an agency of the state also means that the state assumes a level of liability or a responsibility to rescue.
Sketchy should chime in here and comment on my obviously amateur lawyering...
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
Without bothering to recount how the term "taxes" has been applied and interpreted by fiscal conservatives for the last 30+ years, the philosophy behind this is interesting.
Simplified, collection of general levies (e.g., income, property, sales, etc.) that are then allocated to purposes that may not directly benefit a particular taxpayer are not only taxes, but are the type of taxes that raise the most ire from the Right.
[Note: In the current political climate, some have termed this Socialism -- which to be fair, any government activity not solely serving the personal interests of the power elite is a form of socialism.]
The solution devised by "fiscal" conservatives (Reagan really pushed this concept) was to limit government functions, AND to have many of those "non-essential" functions that remained, supported by the individuals who utilized them -- viola: higher User Fees and less general fund allocations. [A more cynical view would be that this was merely cover to defund Gov't regulation that was viewed as inhibiting any possible for profit enterprise -- which is nowdays an openly asserted goal.]
It is odd to see this form of Nimbyism turned on its head in the present context and a targeted user fee be retermed a tax. Presumably the passionate individuals posting here have either not climbed in Denali NP or if they did, would eschew rescue as an un-needed government function; relying instead solely on personal responsibility and "grit."
The above rhetoric seems to parallel (or dare I saw Parrot) the descent of the Right from a conservative philosophy into a system of "beliefs" that are often inconsistent and subject to continual revisionism and "cultural revolution."
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
The fee is a tax, and climbers are disporportionately singled out to pay the tax - because we are a tiny minority and the general public has no sympathy for "reckless climbers".
Beyond that, the arguments aren't persuasive.
The fees do not go for rescue. That is a separate budget, held park wide. Hikers and campers drain the rescue budget far more than climbers, but there is much more public sympathy for them.
Too much of the fees go into collecting the fee. Other major expenses - babysitting the routes to mitigate human impacts and manage our behavior. There are other nice amenities that the fee supports which aren't of real value to climbers. For example, the visitor center in Talkeetna is 100% paid for by the climbers fee, yet 31,000 park visitors go there, only 1,200 of them are climbers. Thousands of peopel use Muir as a day hike, using the toilets. However, only climbers pay the special use fee to maintain those toilets. Concession revenue derived from climbing are not required to go to the program. Only 80% are retained by the Park of origin. These concession fees paid for the nice new roof at the National Park Inn at Rainier. In the case of both parks, the expenses related to the mountaineering program (excluding rescue but including services that other park visitors use) is a tiny fraction of the overall park budget. If every visitor paid $1 more, no fee inclreases would be needed to have the level of "services" - more correctly the level of supervision - that the Park wants to have for climbers. But that is a lot of potential complainers and a far more complicated process for raising the entrance fee.
When it comes to fighting the fees, find a test case and litigate that they are unconstitutional. You'll probably get some funding from some ready sources in help with the legal fees. However, you may lose.
NPS will shut down recreation when it feels that the resource will be affected and they can't manage it. They would rather keep us all confined to a strip of pavement.
The AF originally opposed all fees that singled out climbers. That battle was lost as the NPS budgets were cut and the USFS found holes in its budget from dramatic reductions in timber sales and rapidly escalating fire suppression costs. So the new battle is to keep those fees as low as possible. That is reality and where there is potential to make a difference. Can there be some minor victories here? - yes. The annual pass at Rainier was a direct result of local outcries against the rising fee and the relatively poor local economy. At the public meetings, an official responded to the locals' concerns about paying the fee many times a year and offered the annual option. This was adopted and was a good compromise.
I admire the passion and completely sympathize with the frustration of climbers being milked. I was totally outraged to hear the Denali Superintendent talking about Denali as a bargain among the seven summits. Deanli is an American National Park, not the playground for the rich seeking the glory of the 7 summits.
Pressure needs to be applied to curtail the fee mania sweeping the country. It is regressive taxation and will destroy the connection, and ul;timately the support, of the American people for their public lands. Like everything else, we continue to expand the amount of land that we want kept in governemnt hands, but we don't want to pay for its stewardship. So the put the trees in a tree museum, and charge the people $1.50 just to see them.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
Doug's got passion, but man he can be tough to follow.
I think we need to get away from traditional economic models when it comes to emergency services, because it leads to coming up with the wrong answers, IMHO. First, if we as a society deem it desireable to have rescue services, then we have to establish them and pay for them, end of story. We have to completely divorce ourselves of the sentiments that so and so was a dumbazz, shouldn't have been there and why did we pay for the rescue, vs. wow that was a badazz team, weather just came in and I'm glad they were saved. Either we value our fellow humans and want to help them out, or we don't, there aren't those whoe deserve to be saved, and those who don't.
As to AK and taxes, we will (well at least I will) be happy to give up federal funding when you give us control of the land and the ability to develop it. If you want to lock up the state as a giant park, and prevent the people here from making a living, then you pay for it.
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2011 - 02:02pm PT
|
Government is dependent upon an ignorant society. The comments of many government-supporting climbers demonstrate the ease of the government's job.
The answers to the questions, and the resolutions to the expressed contradictions, are within the information offered at http://AlaskanAlpineClub.org/ClimbingTaxes.html.
But ignorant people are ignorant because they do not take the time, or simply do not have the time, to learn the related knowledge. They are self-victimized, and make fools of themselves, by parroting the sound-byte cliches of government folks who have used those cliches to fool fools for centuries.
A demanded payment by government is a tax, in prevailing law. A fee is an attribute of a private transaction, to acquire a service or product that does not involve a RIGHT. A right cannot be lawfully taxed, cannot lawfully require the payment of a fee or any monetary value, and cannot lawfully require permission (permit, license, mandatory paperwork).
Certainly there are ignorant people who suggest that YOU have no RIGHT to walk on YOUR PUBLIC LAND.
The people who argue that climbers should be forced to pay for government rescues are the most magnificent of the ignorant fools. "There can be no liability to a compelled benefit." - prevailing law. The mountain climbers solved the rescue issue decades ago, as explained in the above mentioned web page, and still there are fools parroting the Park Service / news media lie about rescues. There will always be fools.
The tax paid Coast Guard rescues, which is the only Coast Guard mission in times of peace, of boaters who pay no fee for their each trip onto public waters, and the State police responses to highway accidents, shine a metaphorical trillion lumens on the fools who say those damn mountain climbers should pay a special fee for their rescues.
No problem. The Park Service has cooked its goose with its now noticeable tax on the RIGHT of the common people to walk on their own public land, during the "Arab Spring". The Access Fund and American Alpine Club environmentalists can rally around their Park Service "Sheriff of Nottingham" tax collector, and they only illuminate themselves with the Sheriff.
Now, if you knew that you were opposing the powerful Sheriff of Nottingham, and the war-funding king for whom he collects the taxes, and millions of unquestioning minion fools supporting those insatiably greedy swine, precisely, by line-item process, what would you peacefully and respectfully do?
Lacking money and power, the Alaskan Alpine Club members had to THINK. What is the most valuable process of humans, if not THINKING, while fools in government rely on their POWER, therein the void of thinking?
If you faced a difficult task, would you select for assistants, those with POWER, or those who can THINK? On what is the success of humans predicated, by design of the human mind? Your answer?
Enjoy the show.
And you can start suggesting that climbers who climb Denali and Rainier, starting next spring, are "Disgraces to the history of mountain climbing." Then laugh at the Park Service and establishment reaction. Word of mouth in the subculture defeated Mubarak and all his thugs. His reaction hastened his defeat.
Respectfully, Doug Buchanan, Alaskan Alpine Club delegate to UIAA
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2011 - 11:15pm PT
|
Yooo Roxjox....
If you just would have told me sooner I would not have had to spend this money on a certain poster suggesting something about the climbers who pay the Park Service tax to climb, if you can imagine that. Now what do I do? Do what I am supposed to do, or do what I started to do? The dilemmas of those who ask questions doom them to a life of hopelessly increasing knowledge in a world of soothingly decreasing knowledge. I could just stand still and do nothing, asking no questions, and I would still be intellectually advancing beyond the fine folks who still keep believing the same lies government was telling long before the Roman Empire.
I'll just pour another glass of Ladera 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon, Napa Valley, unlimber a JR Ultimate Number 1 Maduro cigar, set aside a certain advancement in biomimicry technology, ask the question of what I should do, then get back to a bit of rabble rousing, trouble causing, arm waving and general carrying on, not to save the pitiable sorts who have already been saved by government, but to enhance the comedy and laugh myself to tears yet again.
Or something in that general vicinity. Remember, John Waterman, Chuck Comstock and Andrew Embick were each awarded the Alaskan Alpine Club Otzi The Ice Man Award, the climbers who pay the tax to climb Denali and Rainier starting next year are officially "Disgraces to the History of Mountain Climbing", and you are a member of the Alaskan Alpine Club if you say you are. If fact, each membership comes with a free Nobel Peace Prize printed on the same kind of paper used for Obama's prize if you print it.
Climb on...
Doug Buchanan
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2011 - 12:43pm PT
|
What cannot be comprehended by the pitiable Park Service rangers and their minions, the Access Fund and American Alpine Club leaders, is that the conclusion is already certain.
There will be no taxes on the RIGHT of the common people to walk on THEIR OWN PUBLIC LAND.
Now we are only discussing the amount and extent of acrimony, and who will be left on record as supporting the DemocanRepublicrat War and Police Regime against the RIGHTS of the common Americans. Go ahead, try to sustain that tax on human rights. The Americans are gullible and dumb as a post, as demonstrated by the existence of the tax, but things ALWAYS CHANGE.
Left to the Park Service's pocket Access Fund and American Alpine Club leaders, who are on record as supporting said tax as part of their support for a "fully funded National Park Service", the insatiably greedy Park Service would inherently extend the tax to other outdoor recreation groups whose leaders could be "bought-off".
But in time, when the tax on the right of the common people to walk on their own public land inherently reached the wrong group, the group whose leaders will not betray their followers, BLAME would be prominent, and right from the get-go the BLAME would be on THOSE DAMN MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS WHO STARTED AND SUPPORTED THE TAX.
That progression of this ancient issue has been entrenched since government was invented.
Enjoy the show.
You might want to be able to show dated record of your being a mountain climber who was openly and strongly against the climbing tax, because if you fail, your children will be the ones using stronger means to regain their RIGHT TO WALK ON THEIR OWN PUBLIC LAND, and they just may find out or suspect which side you were on.
You can easily secure the wise position of defending the RIGHTS of "your own people", by EFFECTIVELY spreading the word (on any record) that the folks who climb Denali and Rainier, and pay the tax, starting in 2012, are a "Disgrace to the history of mountain climbing".
And you can laugh robustly at the reaction in the power-damaged minds of the insatiably greedy National Park Service "Sheriffs of Nottingham" whose psychological uncertainty around mountain climbers will increase, even if they read these words and know what the climbers are doing. Some of them are already uneasy about the public starting to understand the tax, and are not really on their boss's side.
DougBuchanan.com, the Alaskan Alpine Club paperwork guy.
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2011 - 07:52pm PT
|
Imagine my amusement with a topic title, "For actual climbers only", which gets little attention on SuperTopo.
This supports my common conclusion that the actual climbers are climbing, quite wisely, but their little attention paid to the sorts who claim to organizationally represent them, is the reason they must pay climbing taxes, and be subject to arrest and harassment by National Park Service pigs supported by the Access Fund and American Alpine Club in back rooms.
No problem. While a few of us speak up for climber rights and freedom, the inherent trend of increasing government POWER over climbers will advance to its inescapable collapse. The accusing sisters in Salem kept accusing, inherent to their greed for more power, until they accused the wrong person, identical to the Park Service thugs.
The American Alpine Club and Access Fund will never escape their support for the climbing taxes, much to the amusement of those of us who illuminate their actions.
Respectfully, Doug Buchanan
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Always interesting to see where people on the dole put their energy...
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2011 - 12:20am PT
|
Healyje.....
Trite, more accurately describes the concept. Government chaps therefore on the government dole always apply their maximum energy in defending and increasing the dole they get from the gullible taxpayers.
After a few thousand years of the same concept flawlessly at play, anyone still finding it interesting was born recently.
However, their antics do remain amusing.
It is beyond their comprehension to understand that the people do not want over 90 percent of what government does (shuffles meaningless paper), and the other 10 percent is done more cost-effectively by private enterprise. So when government chaps stand to lie about what they do, and sincerely think they can fool all of the people all of the time, the comedy is obvious.
And keep on having fun.
Doug Buchanan
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2015 - 09:33pm PT
|
This is merely one consideration on a very narrowly-focused topic of self-responsiblity, and in no way reflects my general beliefs in charity and lovingkindness toward other living spirits. I am not on the dole, I am not a republican nor a libertarian nor a democrat. I am a simple potter. Thank you. (Ad hominem attacks are transparently ridiculous, anyway. Please attempt to think beyond them when entering a discussion. Or at least make a good joke. :) Be creative and funny!)
Insurance and Freedom to Roam
To re-assert our freedom in the mountains, have we considered approaching Lloyds of London to come up with a fee which will entitle us to a certificate of insurance to cover our efforts above some specific elevation, at some defined location, for some period of days or months, said certificate to absolve us from some contracted portion of any fees being paid in the cause of "rescue", said rescue to be mounted privately and pre-arranged, as an elemental part of our expedition preparation?
(Lloyds is quite capable of coming up with a formula to manage such risks and probably already does this type of insurance. I doubt any voluntary organization, properly constructed, would not find Lloyds amenable to such a proposal. I envision this as an entirely voluntary organization. It is one of the concepts Doug both proposed and initiated. I would be happy to discuss its expanded concept and formation when I finish my present clay commissions. I have had dealings with Lloyds of London for, hmmm. . . 50 years or so. I was not exactly a sedentary young girl. :) Then I had reason to deal with them later on other issues. I find them entirely agreeable people.)
Anyway, if we want to demonstrate our willingness to take care of our own Climber Tribe(s) in a fully ethical manner, then of course self-responsibility for our actions in climbing situations is a part of that recognition, just as it is in our common driving and hang-gliding situations.
Let us also consider the concept of "freedom to roam" for which I have provided a link to great deal of information. Freedom to Roam has long included Freedom to Climb. I think we must take personal responsibility in a reasonable way for our actions in this manner, or we will find the Nanny Camel's nose further into our tent. If we recognize the flaws inherent in the present system, then we must accept our own responsibility in this mish-mash, and offer a reasonable alternative to the present uncomfortable situation.
And this is only one idea.
What else might we consider as a means to alleviate the burden on our public servants, and get them back to tending to the well-being of our common lands and to the proper role of our employees, our Stewards, who care for our land and its creatures? How do we take responsibliity in such fashion that these servants may return to the proper care for our commonly-held lands?
Toss out a few paradigms here, if you will.
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:13am PT
|
Does that really matter? His ideas are still living.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:20am PT
|
it is, unfortunately, an outdated concept which is impossible to practice as it was once... largely because of the number of people that inhabit the Earth.
The world's population has doubled or tripled in my lifetime. The number of people "roaming" has increased quite dramatically, and the impact of all that "roaming" has been felt by those wild places we all seek the "right" to roam in. Thus, our responsibility "not to trash the place" cannot be met.
Even if we all are impeccable in our practice of roaming.
This was not a problem 100 years ago, or even earlier than that... there were not many of us, and those of us who did "roam" probably were able to go places that few people would travel to at that time. So our insults on the "wild" which were noticeable would eventually be "healed" by the natural process.
At this time, our constant, repeated insults are such that the "wild" we wish to "roam" in are no longer so wild.
When I first went to he Bugaboo's we traveled up a dirt logging road, windows open, straining to hear the sound of a logging truck... the last time I was there we drove up a paved road most of the way, and listened to the sound of heli-hikers being taken into the back country.
When Conrad Kain went in, it was epic, they killed their food and took a huge amount of time getting there. I consider the Bug's to have been "wild" in 1985, it was far from Kain's "wild", and far from my 1996 trip's experience.
I had the feeling at some point that I could fly to anyplace in the world and set foot on a "wild" adventure in 24 to 48 hours... very convenient, but far from any concept of "wild."
To make a "right to roam" flies in the face of common sense, there is little to "wild" to roam in.
As close as it gets is to take a sail boat out into the ocean and make a passage across those seas. Still a far cry from those first journeys.
If we have a "right to roam" in the wilds, what protections is there to keep those places "wild"? It is a paradox with no resolution.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:30am PT
|
Tami asked: "feralfae you do realize Doug Buchanan died in 2012........ "
Tami, feralfae was Dougs significant other. More than the rest of us I'm sure she understands that Doug passed on. That doesn't mean she has to forget the issues Doug was passionate about. Perhaps the reverse?
Take care
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 10:11am PT
|
and the impact of all that "roaming" has been felt by those wild places we all seek the "right" to roam in.
You prompted me to think about one of the major things that has changed in that last 100 years, as described in "The Graduate":
Plastics.
Prior to that time, pretty much everything was biodegradable in a relatively short time. But not so with plastics.
As for that "roaming", and the right to pollute, I'm in mind of a golf club and golf balls at the base of Obelisk, left for decades. How "funny".
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 02:18pm PT
|
Hi Tami,
Doug and I would have celebrated out 10th anniversary this past May, if he were still here. Thank you, though.
ff
Generally, I was trying to frame the specific issue of delineating the responsibility for rescuing climbers, and solicit input on this very narrow issue of who is best responsible for the rescue of climbers.
Ed, I have spent time in several countries (England, Scotland, Scandinavia) where the right to roam is not only alive and well, but people are wonderfully respectful of the land and its life. But I suppose that perhaps those countries must have far less population density and more responsible people than Ed points out is the case here in the United States, although on the paths, trails and waterways through private lands in Montana and Wyoming, I have not seen any of this "trashing" although I have certainly noticed more paving and painted parking lots put up by government.
A part of being free to roam has always been taking responsibility for preserving the land. I know there are problems in some areas - Asia and S. America - with this practice, where people cut trees and kill game. That is why we hire land stewards: to protect the life of our common land and private land where there are public pathways or waterways. And mountains.
Ed, I think that to posit that there is some tipping point number at which we surrender our basic civility and responsibility to government enforcement deprives us of a maturation process we are woefully lacking in much of our engagement with public lands. But to expect the government to nanny us through our adventures, rather than planning for our outings and taking reasonable measures, is to abdicate our freedom by refusing to abide within the limits we need to impose on ourselves. To dismiss such responsibility as an impossibility due to population growth is bring into a narrowly-defined discussion a broad problem that can be cited as the source of problems in everything from public schooling to flight paths.
Which is why I asked for ideas rather than excuses.
And how about "There are now enough people to find excellent solutions to these problems!"
rather than "There are too many of us and this problem is impossible to solve without intervention by government."
I brought up Lloyds as an option to government intervention in mountain activities. Pollution of public and private lands, on the other hand, should be punished and restitution required to the land owners, which most often are the public, at least in this nation. But I do not see it as a part of this discussion, but rather as simply another red herring.
Why should climbers be exempt from self-insuring while climbing any more than drivers would be held exempt while driving? And why would either group not want to be insured? And why should the government be held responsible for rescuing anyone, anywhere?
The article to which I provided a link, which I provide again here, is a rather extensive survey of existing freedom to roam traditional and more contemporary practices, laws, and discussions on that freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
If population pressure is an issue associated with the cost of rescue of climbers, then I have found no data to support that assertion, Ed. I would appreciate your source for your statement "The number of people "roaming" has increased quite dramatically, and the impact of all that "roaming" has been felt by those wild places we all seek the "right" to roam in. Thus, our responsibility "not to trash the place" cannot be met." (While I was speaking of the right to roam as it relates to mountain climbing, I understand that you have chosen to broaden the issue to pollution of pathways and wild places for some unspecified reason, stating that the problem of trashing can no longer be left to the responsibility of individuals thus engaged. I can only assume that you somehow extrapolate from climbing rescues to trashing, but I am unable to see how you relate this to climbing rescues.)
Why can climbing rescues, whether five or five hundred, not be met? What data do you have to validate this statement? If this is personal observation, rather than validated data, I would also appreciate knowing how you find it applicable to the issue of climber rescues and the responsibility of climbers for insuring against same; the basic issue being whether or not government should be involved in or paying for these rescues, or if climbers need to provide their own rescue insurance and arrangements.
Freedom to roam in no instance (that I have been able to find) implies the freedom from responsibility to provide for rescue and restitution. Nor does freedom to roam, for purposes of this discussion, extend beyond discussing the freedom to roam in the mountains.
This is a very narrowly-focused discussion, the issue at hand being one you, Ed, appear to have side-stepped with great flourishes and pronouncements. Perhaps your own presence here is a proper example of over-population in a narrowly-defined discussion. :) Quite possibly. I proposed that climbers should be insured and arrangements for rescue should be made prior to undertaking any climbing. I suggested the option and example of Lloyds. I asked for additional input.
This is a discussion about options for insuring climbers in case of needed rescue, toward removing such activities from the government's scope of operations so that Park Rangers can return to their stewardship work.
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 02:27pm PT
|
Thanks Doug, for changing my thoughts on a few climbing related issues. I miss your posts... Hope all is well Ferelfae.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 02:34pm PT
|
The only time I ever talked to a US senator face to face was due to this exact issue. It is NOT a simple issue. This was shortly after the fee initiated by the park service for just climbing Denali. One I opposed and still do. Infact A buddy of mine was the first person to climb on Denali after the fee was imposed and he did not pay it and we had kinda set up a showdown with the park service and had the AP lined up for the story in order to fight it.. Park service simply ignored the violation and continued with the questionable practice and it is now simply accepted.
Then Senator Murkowski had invited a discussion with Denali Guides regarding rescue costs and possible implementation of fees for such on Denali. I missed out on the meeting due to work.
Later that evening I tracked Murkowski down in downtown Anchorage and spoke with him privately. My first comment to him I hrad somewhat rehearsed and it went like this. The purpose of government is to preserve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I have never been happier than when climbing Denali. This elicited a real smile from the man and a several minute conversation.
I talked about the fact that I was a volunteer mountain rescue member and a guide on Denali. That in many cases the guides on Denali took it upon themselves to assist in rescues with no financial compensation. I mentioned how the coast guard rescues recreational boaters no questions asked. I even conceeded a willingness to pay an affordable fee (perhaps a few hundred) for actual insurance but only if that covered medical costs as well. I felt that getting medical costs covered would actually make the fee worthwhile, compared to the fees already being paid. Fee's I felt robbed by.
Murkowski listened and asked a few questions here and there. In the end nothing occurred, I'm not sure why but my guess is that there was not sufficient customers for an affordable, profitable or break even insurance scheme to work on Denali.
Our nation has some great traditions when it comes to rescue... the coast guard, the national guard and in extreme cases of disaster the full armed services for example.
However it is abysmal in it's medical coverage system. Any person may require rescue in their lives. All will require medical care. In my mind this is a set of services so universal and critical that it should be funded by a nonprofit single payer system. In order to take best advantage of basic insurance economics and buying power.
Perhaps even a highly regulated or even socialist provider system. That part is more problematic and I'm unsure if it is advisable for best care.
It comes down to the first and most fundamental purpose of government. The preservation of life.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 03:56pm PT
|
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund the .. insatiable National Park Service bureaucracy
Nicely reasoned and well phrased tautology. Well sure since they're insatiable it stands to reason that it's impossible to satisfy them .. that checks out .. must be legit!
Thanks for speaking for all actual climbers (and not treading on the perspectives of the theoretical climbers) but climbing without government hassles and not fully funding the parks are not actually primary goals of this actual climber.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 04:19pm PT
|
rBord,
I am not sure Doug is reading this thread any more. :) But who knows? :)
Yes, by the definition of those words, one cannot possibly satisfy that which is insatiable. It was good rhetoric in its day.
But off the point of the present discussion: as one real climber to another, are you willing to accept responsibility for funding your own rescue when you decide to undertake to place yourself in a situation with perhaps a higher actuarial risk than, say, the family of four having dinner at the local lodge?
Do you think the better choice is to pull Park Rangers away from their usual work, or better to have arranged with private rescue professionals—who would no doubt require a signaling device to be in use by your team and who have all the needed equipment because this is their work—because you chose to undertake this adventure, which you might also refrain from doing if you are not willing to accept responsibility for your actions?
Those are the questions now before the house, so to type. :)
As a tiny further comment, I am sure Lloyds (and other insurers) have experience and data on rescues and medical expenses during such activities. They are rather canny at that sort of thing. :)
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 05:17pm PT
|
Thanks feralfae. I like the tone of your rhetoric :-)
I think that the excellent solution that humans have found as our population has increased is called "government". :-)
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 05:47pm PT
|
Yep....if it weren't for the development of "government" in human evolution we likely wouldn't be on this forum having this discussion.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:52pm PT
|
I was focusing on the "freedom to roam" which I think is a quaint anachronism.
As far as climber rescue is concerned, I have recently been involved in two rescues, one in which we self rescued to the SAR cache where we obtained expert opinion about the degree of the injuries and decided to evacuate to a hospital on our own.
It is true that we spent tax payer dollars tying up YOSAR personnel for about an hour. We would have used the clinic were that an option, presumably using the victim's health insurance to cover the costs. Had we been billed for the time that YOSAR spent we would have gladly paid it.
In the other case we evacuated the victim to the ground, but required people and equipment to make the transport from the cliff base to the road. This involved YOSAR also, the victim paid for the ambulance costs from YNP to an area trauma center. I do not believe that the victim was charged for the rescue.
In many places I have climbed, external rescue was unlikely because of the impossibility of communications. In those cases we were aware that we had to act with recognition of the consequences of our actions, and that we were fully responsible to get our asses out of a bad situation with no expectation of external aid. Insurance in those cases was irrelevant since we could not call for aid at all. I tend to behave like that everywhere... however, if there is the possibility of obtaining help, I won't hesitate to ask for it in an emergency. I also don't hesitate to provide it when I can.
Independent of my insurance status, if I have a serious accident on the road I will be "rescued" whether I have explicitly requested it or not. I am probably not going to pay the cost of the actual rescue since the agencies responsible (police, fire, etc.) have, as part of their "mission," rescue response. As a society we have chosen to have those public agencies respond. This is not a stretch for climbers and rescues.
The logic isn't one of the "nanny state" but of the role of public agencies promoting the public welfare. The vast majority of YOSAR activity in YNP is aiding tourists in need. One might require of anyone traveling to YNP an insurance policy that explicitly funds "rescue" costs, and have the insurance companies provide private rescue for their clients.
Anyone not able to provide verification of such an insurance policy would be turned away at the gate. This avoids the problem of who pays for rescues. I suppose that people evading the verification and who were involved in a mishap would not be helped and be left to their fate. For climbers we have the image of Kurz hanging dead on his rope... no one to pay for taking him down, he didn't have any insurance.
You are free to roam as long as you can prove that you will not "take" from the "owners" of the wild you're roaming on the costs that might occur because of some mishap to you or your fellow roamers. What a strange definition of "wild."
In antiquity, you roamed the wilds and if something happened to you it was very likely no one would know. You were fully responsible for what might befall you "out there." My point is that there is no "out there" anymore.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 10:43pm PT
|
here's an example, I plotted the visits to Yosemite NP per year and the California population per year (polynomial interpolation between census years).
The California population has more than doubled since my birth...
the ratio of YNP visits to Cali pop. has been roughly 11% from 1960 to present... which means the number of visits has increased (more than doubled) in that same time period.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2015 - 12:08am PT
|
I am puzzled by the discussion involving Rainier.
There IS an insurance program for SAR there. You pay the climbing permit fee, and the money is used to fund the Climbing Ranger/SAR system. Unlike off-site SAR that might end up in unknown terrain, the SAR program is made up of mountaineers with great knowledge and specific skills for that mountain.
The last time they increased the fee, the local mountaineering community SUPPORTED it.
Interestingly, the man who created that program is now the Chief of Staff in Yos, Mike Gauthier, author of the guide for Rainier.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2015 - 01:00am PT
|
Thank you rbord, Donini, Ed and Ken.
I especially liked this, as it might apply to climbers, beyond normal recreation activities in parks:
Anyone not able to provide verification of such an insurance policy would be turned away at the gate. This avoids the problem of who pays for rescues. I suppose that people evading the verification and who were involved in a mishap would not be helped and be left to their fate. (I have taken this out of a larger context, see Ed's responses above.)
But as with drivers with no insurance, I doubt any climbers would be left to their fate, although probably heavily fined. I don't think our basic humanity would allow us to knowingly leave people stranded and facing certain death. How horrid. I'd certainly help to fund those rescue efforts. But climbing is not a "normal risk of life" and sets this activity apart from, say, having a picnic or peacefully kayaking along a waterway.
I have a reason for renewing this discussion, a reason which is related to the topic here. I do not know if it is a proper function of government to provide insurance or to rescue of climbers, or if we should take responsibility for that. We expect people to have car insurance if they are driving around in a car. I expect that people will have homeowner's insurance in case their dog knocks me off their deck. When I am driving in foreign countries, I make sure I have proper insurance. When I was scaling the limestone bluffs of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers looking for petroglyphs, I made sure I had adequate insurance for falling into water, not my favorite element.
Government has many proper functions: I am not at all convinced that insuring and/or rescuing climbers is one of them. Helping people who are simply doing normal recreation seems proper, but for those of us who knowingly expose ourselves to additional risks, do we have the right to expect government to save our rowdy behinds? :) Or, as in skydiving and heli-skiing, should we be properly insured with proper rescue set up, if possible. (I hear you Ed, on being places there is no way to signal or obtain rescue support.)
Ken, SAR—of which I did not know—might make a good model for other heavily used locations. I am going to do some research on this. I am intrigued.
Thank you all
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
After reading many of the SAR reports for Rainier, and also reading the duties of the attendant Rangers, it looks like a good program. I had been looking at some of the SAR programs in Europe, and the charitable funding of some SAR efforts in Switzerland and Lichtenstein.
Rainier has some particular issues of population pressure, and I think that the plan in place is working for everyone. As Ed pointed out, that population pressure will continue to grow as population grows. If one reads all that the Rainier Rangers are responsible for doing, it is apparent that their primary responsibility remains that of stewardship of the land, which is as it should be. Note the order of fund usage:
//Where does the money used to purchase my Mount Rainier Climbing Pass go?
The funds generated from Mount Rainier Climbing Pass sales are used to run the Mount Rainier Climbing Program. Funds are used to:
Protect the mountain's delicate and unique alpine environment
Staff the mountain's high camps with climbing rangers
Staff ranger stations with climbing rangers and other personnel to assist climbers in registration
Maintain a clean and healthful upper mountain free of human waste
Fly human waste off the mountain from collection points and dispose of it properly
Provide rangers who can rapidly respond to incidents on the mountain
//
Because climbing is an exceptionally risky undertaking compared to, say, a picnic at the base, I still think individual insurance is a prudent requirement. Yes, I'd make it mandatory for climbers to have insurance for their particular route(s). I also think that it is not the job of the NPS to manage that insurance. I am impressed with the interface of private, public, volunteer and paid personnel who respond to SAR on Rainier. I am still studying this issue, so my thinking is still shifting.
Thank you for the information. I am gathering data for a reason, and this discussion has been most helpful in a review of how SAR for climbers is presently perceived and conducted, as well as gathering some valuable opinions from some active and informed climbers.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
your premise that climbing is "exceptionally risky" is a perception held by the general public which is unsubstantiated.
perhaps you could provide an accident rate for climbing, in terms of the total visits to the park... I believe you'd find that the rate is very small, smaller than the number of injury accidents due to traffic accidents, or to hiker "slips, trips and falls" and of the general "medical emergencies" that befall the public.
it is an important point...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Ed, you may be right on the perception risk.
I wonder if you know of any studies of resources consumed by various activities. I would appreciate it if you do. Meanwhile, I will look as well. It could be that my perception is skewed in part by my own bad fall as part of an avalanche of boulders and debris, and the ensuring expenditure of resources required to get me to an emergency room and stabilized.
Thank you for that thought.
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Ed, I think you are right. These statistics are old, and in some instances a bit fuzzy, but clearly, there are some units where SAR is a burgeoning activity and responsibility for Rangers.
Look:
"Wilderness Environ Med. 2009 Fall;20(3):244-9. doi: 10.1580/08-WEME-OR-299R.1.
Dead men walking: search and rescue in US National Parks.
Heggie TW1, Amundson ME.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To identify search and rescue (SAR) trends in US National Park Service (NPS) units.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of the US National Park Service Annual Search and Rescue Reports from 1992 to 2007 and the SAR statistics for all NPS units in 2005.
RESULTS:
From 1992 to 2007 there were 78,488 individuals involved in 65,439 SAR incidents. These incidents ended with 2659 fatalities, 24,288 ill or injured individuals, and 13,212 saves. On average there were 11.2 SAR incidents each day at an average cost of $895 per operation. Total SAR costs from 1992 to 2007 were $58,572 164. In 2005, 50% of the 2430 SAR operations occurred in just 5 NPS units. Grand Canyon National Park (307) and Gateway National Recreation Area (293) reported the most SAR operations. Yosemite National Park accounted for 25% of the total NPS SAR costs ($1.2 million); Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve ($29,310) and Denali National Park and Preserve ($18,345) had the highest average SAR costs. Hiking (48%) and boating (21%) were the most common activities requiring SAR assistance. Hiking (22.8%), suicides (12.1%), swimming (10.1%), and boating (10.1%) activities were the most common activities resulting in fatalities.
CONCLUSIONS:
Without the presence of NPS personnel responding to SAR incidents, 1 in 5 (20%) of those requesting SAR assistance would be a fatality. Future research and the development of any prevention efforts should focus on the 5 NPS units where 50% of all SAR incidents are occurring."
I am looking for more data.
From what I am reading now, it appears that in climbing, being out of shape and overly confident of stamina are two overwhelming factors for SAR in climbing. The cost per operation may be misleading, however. I will research more and post here as I learn more. Thank you for your thinking on this.
feralfae
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
perhaps you could provide an accident rate for climbing, in terms of the total visits to the park... I believe you'd find that the rate is very small, smaller than the number of injury accidents due to traffic accidents, or to hiker "slips, trips and falls" and of the general "medical emergencies" that befall the public.
Ed, I think that way of thinking is very misleading. That is because the "N" you want to use is of all visitors, NOT of all climbers.
For example, you might do the same analysis of "Waterfall divers", those who go over the top of waterfalls. As a percentage of park visitors, it is exceptionally small, and the deaths (although the rate is 100%)a tiny number.
Would one conclude that going over the top of a waterfall is very safe???
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Because climbing is an exceptionally risky undertaking compared to, say, a picnic at the base, I still think individual insurance is a prudent requirement. Yes, I'd make it mandatory for climbers to have insurance for their particular route(s). I also think that it is not the job of the NPS to manage that insurance. I am impressed with the interface of private, public, volunteer and paid personnel who respond to SAR on Rainier. I am still studying this issue, so my thinking is still shifting.
The issue in your statement is "mandatory", which implies that some entity will be required to enforce this. I can't fathom how any entity other than the land manager could do this, in this case the NPS. On Rainier, they did manage it, and it has been successful. One could say the same for Shasta.
Interesting to think about.
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
On average 12 high school football players die each year.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
Climbing in Texas is over rated.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Ken M,
Your point is well taken.
(Below are all hypothetical numbers for purposes of this discussion only. They will probably bear little if any relationship to the reality of the data.)
On the one hand, a parsing of SAR events by activity might reveal a higher percentage of SAR events for climbers than for strollers, per capita. It might be 25 SAR events per 500 climbers, and only 12 SAR events per 500 day hikers. Day hikers, however, may be twenty times more numerous than climbers.
It does not follow that climbing-related SAR expenditures exceed those for other activities— when we consider that other activities with significantly greater populations of participants may have a higher cumulative expenditure.
I think this is what you meant, but please correct me if I am mistaken.
Obviously, I am still working through my thinking process on this issue. Thank you again for your input, as it is of some significance to me.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
ff:
You are the greatest. Well, there was Ali. Will you settle for second greatest?
If not the greatest, then the elegantist (is that a word)?
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
zb,
Thank you for the kind words.
I do not aspire to rout the Champ. :) Or other Champs.
I'll settle for a place just about anywhere in the empyrean.
And elegantist is a nice work, thank you.
:)
ff
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
It does not follow that climbing-related SAR expenditures exceed those for other activities
I would disagree based on the complexity of many climbing rescues which, if the participants
were paid, would be very expensive. Even given the volunteerism helo time can run into the
dozens of hours. This, of course, pales in comparison to the recent search for the two Florida
teen boaters. If the Coast Guard did an accurate accounting how many millions did that cost?
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Good point, Reilly.
For purposes of this discussion, I'd like to focus on
1) SAR activities in National Parks
2) The risk associated with a sorted sampling of activities in NPs to determine an SAR incident ratio based on SAR events per 1,000 activity participants, by activity, and Park, if possible, perhaps by exact location (which mountain? which ascent?) (very actuarial)
3)The average cost of an SAR event by activity
4) The aggregate cost of SAR events by activity
5) Investigating the role self-insurance has or might have with respect to climbing-related SARs in the National Parks, the present policy(ies)—for the very reason you mention: the often impressive expenditure of resources for climbing-related SARs.
This is a work in process. I am still sorting this out. Thank you for your input. It is helpful.
feralfae
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
feral, I think you've set the bar impossibly high, at least in terms of accessing meaningful data.
My position is that it would be much simpler, and much cheaper to the taxpayers, if we just
went with the Europeans' model. With everyone of even marginal intelligence buying the
requisite insurance it is laughably cheap. Then you have professional guides doing the
rescues and everyone goes home happy, except for the obvious ones.
See how simple that was? ;-)
signed,
Took Part In Too Many SAR Circuses
BTW, I belong to the Austrian Alpine Club cause they have the best insurance - worldwide!
$120 for the wife and me!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
One other issue to think about: the skill required and ongoing training costs for technical rescues not needed for other rescues.
It may be trivial in the big picture, but may not be.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Yes, Reilly, that is pretty much where I started my thinking: using the Euro model. Austrian Alpine has a good program, and there is the NGO/NFP out of Switzerland and Lichtenstein with equipment and staffing for SAR activities. But there seems to be resistance in this country (a nascent and rough conclusion on my part) to individual climbers taking responsibility for being insured. There appears to be a reliance on government to take care of SAR efforts. In Europe, in many areas, having climbing insurance seems to be a given.
Since that paradigm of individual responsibility seems unacceptable to some climbers who want assistance and protection, as well as SAR, from or through government entities, I though it would be good to examine the models.
Your thoughts are most appreciated.
Yes, my data thresholds may be too high, but this is also the very sort of data gleaning that bureaucrats love to do. I'll see where it goes.
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Yes, Ken M, the training and skill levels required tend to narrow the field of acceptable volunteers/ other climbers for SAR efforts.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
Doug, I'm with you in spirit but, to be blunt, your writing style is terrible. It's divisive, shocking, off-putting and often confusing.
It seems like you consider major portions of the human race to be bad or evil without hope. People have been given the job of solving problems. They take the job because they need the money to eat. They may not be the most qualified but they are the ones that applied and are willing to work for whatever pay is offered. And most would rather be doing something else.
Yes this is a horrible injustice.
The non-climbing taxpayer who has no interest in our level of adventure feels the injustice of having to pay to rescue the unfortunate failures of outdoor recreationists. And there are more of them than us.
Try being friendly to your opposition. Edit out all the accusative bits. Get to the point of the solutions. Seek to see the other guy's viewpoint.
It would be great if there were no taxes and no one ever needed government help of any kind.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Spider, you have a good heart.
Now then, back to talking about insurance and stuff. :)
I am doing more research when I have time, but have an art show I am working on right now, so my attention here will be a bit less for a while.
feralfae
|
|
| Messages 1 - 54 of total 54 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!