Epinephrine Rescue
|
I stand by what I said. |
|
Kbobby: Examining the validity of a call for aid is counterproductive at best. As a policy it is downright dangerous. Charging for response is even worse. If you think it is best to not perform rescues for individuals who are able to walk out on their own, you should talk to some SAR professionals. |
|
Both the paid officers and the volunteers in Clark County are some of the best in the country. They are held to the highest standards for both technical skills and physical fitness. |
|
Rob is spot on. Rescues should be a liability of the individual(s) needing rescue, managed no different than how Clark County collects on a speeding ticket, through the courts via a fine. Anyone who could get lost on a route like Epi should not be climbing it to begin with in my opinion, but thats impossible to police nor do I believe government has the competence to do so. Darwin's Law is the best selection management tool for such activities. Rob Fielding wrote: Kbobby: Examining the validity of a call for aid is counterproductive at best. As a policy it is downright dangerous. Charging for response is even worse. If you think it is best to not perform rescues for individuals who are able to walk out on their own, you should talk to some SAR professionals. You have obviously never worked for the government or have been associated with a job that has, otherwise you would see it from a different perspective. Negligence, incompetence, and "the unedumacated" is where most of your "tax payer" money goes to. At least from a medical perspective. What you're saying is exactly the problem that fuels the people. Where do you draw the line? If you don't have a medical/trauma life threatening emergency, SAR should not be called and here is why. Every single time that helicopter responds into a canyon it puts all of the SAR members at life threatening risk with the possibility of death. If the people being rescued are not in "life threatening" danger, then it does not equal out in the equation. Criteria should be met, but there is liability concerned with that matter. Where do you draw the line? Any free service is always taken advantage of. If a person initiates SAR response and is a situation they could have manage on there own, then all means they should be charged. If it was a unnavoidable emergency, then that is a different story. The only benefit I see is training for the SAR team, but every time they go out there is risk involved. Most of the SAR Vegas team is compiled of Volunteers, not paid police officers. SAR Vegas has 8-10 employed officers and only 2-3 work in a given shift, the rest is volunteer buddy. The volunteer staff is the majority responding to the call. |
|
Just a note about people saying they should have just sucked it up and waited til morning. From the SAR story: |
|
thedogfather wrote:Just a note about people saying they should have just sucked it up and waited til morning. From the SAR story: "At one point, sleet came down on the team followed by heavy rain." Even though it is normally pretty warm at night this time of year, I get the feeling the SAR team may have been more familiar with the forecast and saw this as more urgent than normal.True, it did rain fairly hard most of the day on the 4th. Although, imo the SAR here is waaay too overzealous with their rescues. I've seen them short haul people in Calico Basin a couple times when the victim is a couple hundred yards from the parking lot. |
|
Wouldn't the sleet and heavy rain make the rock especially brittle, thereby making a self rescue or continuation of the climb in the morning more dangerous and potentially detremental to the route itself? I'm not defending the rescue or the climbers, but if i were in that situation that thought would cross my mind. Doesn't rule out leaving a few pieces and descending I guess. |
|
And more people would end up dead because of they're anxious, hungry, thirsty, foolish attitude, while trying to manuever on wet, unfamiliar territory. |
|
Seth Derr wrote:Wouldn't the sleet and heavy rain make the rock especially brittle, thereby making a self rescue or continuation of the climb in the morning more dangerous and potentially detremental to the route itself?+1! |
|
Clearly SAR was rescuing the route from these gumbies. |
|
Jeremy Hand wrote: +1!That's just an old wives' tale. Here's some proof. almost there! /end sarcasm. |
|
That pic is too funny because the route featured is "Idiot Parade" It's like a swimming pool in there. |
|
thedogfather wrote:That pic is too funny because the route featured is "Idiot Parade" It's like a swimming pool in there.I noticed the irony in that too. |
|
sqwirll wrote: That's just an old wives' tale. Here's some proof. /end sarcasm.Jesus, is that how that area always looks? |
|
alexdavis wrote: Jesus, is that how that area always looks?Well, most of the time there's not any water in it. |
|
sqwirll wrote: Well, most of the time there's not any water in it.I meant in regards to the number of people. |
|
alexdavis wrote: I meant in regards to the number of people.I know, I was just being a smartass. It's usually packed in there during the busy seasons. |
|
Rob Fielding wrote: Kbobby: Examining the validity of a call for aid is counterproductive at best. As a policy it is downright dangerous. Charging for response is even worse. If you think it is best to not perform rescues for individuals who are able to walk out on their own, you should talk to some SAR professionals. You have obviously never worked for the government or have been associated with a job that has, otherwise you would see it from a different perspective. Negligence, incompetence, and "the unedumacated" is where most of your "tax payer" money goes to. At least from a medical perspective. What you're saying is exactly the problem that fuels the people. Where do you draw the line? If you don't have a medical/trauma life threatening emergency, SAR should not be called and here is why. Every single time that helicopter responds into a canyon it puts all of the SAR members at life threatening risk with the possibility of death. If the people being rescued are not in "life threatening" danger, then it does not equal out in the equation. Criteria should be met, but there is liability concerned with that matter. Where do you draw the line? Any free service is always taken advantage of. If a person initiates SAR response and is a situation they could have manage on there own, then all means they should be charged. If it was a unnavoidable emergency, then that is a different story. The only benefit I see is training for the SAR team, but every time they go out there is risk involved. Most of the SAR Vegas team is compiled of Volunteers, not paid police officers. SAR Vegas has 8-10 employed officers and only 2-3 work in a given shift, the rest is volunteer buddy. The volunteer staff is the majority responding to the call.And every single time you're order pizza to be delivered you putting the delivery boy at "life threatening risk with the possibility of death." I'm sure the SAR team is trained and qualified to modify any rescues when they recognize any hazards to themselves. |
|
Ben Beard wrote: And every single time you're order pizza to be delivered you putting the delivery boy at "life threatening risk with the possibility of death." I'm sure the SAR team is trained and qualified to modify any rescues when they recognize any hazards to themselves.And that's why there's a fee for delivery! lol. |
|
alexdavis wrote: And that's why there's a fee for delivery! lol.perfect finish.....damn |