Rescuing Ice Fishermen
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
3,278 Posts
I would say no. Because the fire department goes out to get them and we pay taxes to pay them. just my opinion.
Joined
·
261 Posts
I am ignorant on this but do you have to pay for the firedept to show up to an accident that is your fault? I know you have to pay for an ambulance run to the hosp. I can't see having to pay for their services that you have already paid for. Although some people ought to be charged for being idiots lol.
Bill
Bill
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
Yes,
I would support Ice Fishermen being required to pay for thier rescue ONLY if the rescue occurs on a navigable waterway, by the Coast Gaurd.
Anytime an ice fisherman ventures onto a ice patch on a large body of water that is not completely landlocked there is a known risk of wind blown ice shifting that could strand the ice fisherman.
The decision to proceed in a recreational activity with the known inherent risks of such an activity should be only the responsibility of the decision maker.
To put the burden on me, the tax payer, to pay for thier rescue when there is a known risk prior to engaging in the recreational activity would cause, and does cause, undo taxation of me to pay for thier decision.
This is not unlike the laws that require mountian climbers to pay for thier own resues if needed.
I have ice fished Lake Erie many times and will continue to ice fish Lake Erie. It is my choice to do so. In such, I must, and I am willing to accept the results of my decision. I don't want anyone else to have to pay for MY choice.
When the tax's of the many go to pay for the activities of the few the only result is more taxes. I won't ask anybody to pay for my choices if nobody asks me to pay for thier choices.
My opinion,
Kim
I would support Ice Fishermen being required to pay for thier rescue ONLY if the rescue occurs on a navigable waterway, by the Coast Gaurd.
Anytime an ice fisherman ventures onto a ice patch on a large body of water that is not completely landlocked there is a known risk of wind blown ice shifting that could strand the ice fisherman.
The decision to proceed in a recreational activity with the known inherent risks of such an activity should be only the responsibility of the decision maker.
To put the burden on me, the tax payer, to pay for thier rescue when there is a known risk prior to engaging in the recreational activity would cause, and does cause, undo taxation of me to pay for thier decision.
This is not unlike the laws that require mountian climbers to pay for thier own resues if needed.
I have ice fished Lake Erie many times and will continue to ice fish Lake Erie. It is my choice to do so. In such, I must, and I am willing to accept the results of my decision. I don't want anyone else to have to pay for MY choice.
When the tax's of the many go to pay for the activities of the few the only result is more taxes. I won't ask anybody to pay for my choices if nobody asks me to pay for thier choices.
My opinion,
Kim
Joined
·
261 Posts
your taxes are already paying for it.
Bill
Bill
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
Bill_gfish,
My point exactly!
Kim
My point exactly!
Kim
Joined
·
261 Posts
OK I see your point now. If they are making the mistake let them pay for it themselves and let our taxes go to something that at least deserves it.
Bill
Bill
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
This is a very interesting pole to me.
This potential proposed law as I understand it would only apply to Lake Erie of Ohio, not inland lakes.
To date 14 people have said that they would not support a new law to place the financial burden of the rescue on the individual ice fisherman that becomes stranded on Erie and requires a Coast Gaurd rescue.
No one has really explained thier reason for not supporting such a change in the laws. Could you please explain your position on this question.
thanks,
Kim
This potential proposed law as I understand it would only apply to Lake Erie of Ohio, not inland lakes.
To date 14 people have said that they would not support a new law to place the financial burden of the rescue on the individual ice fisherman that becomes stranded on Erie and requires a Coast Gaurd rescue.
No one has really explained thier reason for not supporting such a change in the laws. Could you please explain your position on this question.
thanks,
Kim
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
What's the deal?
This same poll on the Michigan-sportsman website has had 934 votes, with 629 votes or 67.27% in favor and 305 votes or 32.73% opposed.
Almost a complete reversal of the vote percentages here.
I think it interesting to compare the various sections of the USA views on the same subject.
Kim
This same poll on the Michigan-sportsman website has had 934 votes, with 629 votes or 67.27% in favor and 305 votes or 32.73% opposed.
Almost a complete reversal of the vote percentages here.
I think it interesting to compare the various sections of the USA views on the same subject.
Kim
Rescuee's Should Pay
I'm in favor of the rescued person or persons paying, I figure that if you take the risk to venture out on that ice, then the person or persons should be held accountable for their actions.....
Risks are an every day occurance, some are just more risky than others....
I'm in favor of the rescued person or persons paying, I figure that if you take the risk to venture out on that ice, then the person or persons should be held accountable for their actions.....
Risks are an every day occurance, some are just more risky than others....
I will support ice fishermen paying for their own rescue when mountain climbers and backpackers pay to be rescued from mountains and other wildernesses; when people who build in fire zones pay to be rescued and have hundreds of firefighters fight to save them and their properties; when people in flood zones pay to be rescued when the river floods; etc. etc. Cost to rescue 20 standed ice fishermen ?????? $10,000???? Cost to rescue 2 climbers 20,000 feet up on a mountain when the rescuers have to find them first and then send in climbers to get them ????? $500,000 ??????
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
