Comments ? ( O T )-----S A R

[Kip Powick]

Looking back now, even as fog and darkness enveloped him while he clung soaking wet to a tree trunk on the icy bank of Lake Scugog, Neil Robbescheuten would think twice before calling 911 if it all happened again.

That’s because, after firefighters rescued him from an ice fishing excursion gone wrong on Jan. 13, Robbescheuten got a bill in the mail for $5,392.78.

Robbescheuten, 62, is the first person billed by the Township of Scugog after the regional council recommended last March that the local fire department attempt to “recover costs” from people saved in ice and water rescues on Lake Scugog.

The invoice is labeled 001. At the bottom it reads: “Thank you for your business.”

“I was almost ready for a heart attack,” said the retired school principal. “I think it’s horribly wrong.”

Robbescheuten was given 30 days to pay up, but plans to contest the bill at Scugog council on March 4.

“If I pay this bill, it’s telling them that I condone the process, and I don’t. I absolutely abhor it,” he said. “If they’re looking for money, there are lots of other ways.”

Scugog Mayor Chuck Mercier denied the recommendation was made primarily for budget concerns. He said the aim is to discourage people from taking unnecessary risks on the lake, decisions that could put rescue workers in danger.

“If I lost six firefighters on that foggy day, going out on Lake Scugog when the ice conditions were so treacherous, who would have cried then?

“That day, no one should have been out on the ice.”

Two days before Robbenscheuten’s mishap on the ice, the Kawartha Conservation warned residents to stay off frozen waterways, stating that “all local rivers, streams and lakes should be considered extremely dangerous.”

But Robbescheuten, who has fished on Lake Scugog for 30 years, maintains he was safe until fog rolled in as darkness fell. He grew disoriented on his way back to shore, then fell through the ice and got stuck in mud and water up to his waist.

He said he tore a ligament in his right knee as he scrambled out towards the shoreline, where he called 911 on his cellphone.

Scugog fire chief Richard Miller, who wrote a report that led to the call for rescue bills, said the weather was warm and rainy in the days before Robbescheuten’s excursion.

“No ice is safe ice,” he said. “The minute you step on the lake, that’s your choice … If people want to go out there, they’re on their own.”

Robbescheuten believes that mentality will send the wrong message to people who find themselves in danger, regardless of whether they’ve been responsible on the lake.

“When I taught kids at school, we always told them, ‘If you think you’re in danger, in life-threatening danger, you’re going to call 911,’” he said.

“If we have 911 billing, it will discourage some people from calling, it will delay response times if they don’t call immediately, and we could get into all kinds of issues.”

Richard Boyes, executive director of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs , brushed off that concern.

“I wouldn’t think that’s a deterrent at all,” he said of rescue billing. “Anyone that’s in an emergency situation, I highly doubt would be considering that.”

He added that last March, the Township of Oro-Medonte billed 26 anglers roughly $200 each after they were rescued from an ice floe on Lake Simcoe.

“A lot of these rescues, first of all they endanger the rescuers, and they incur a lot of costs,” said Boyes. “It’s becoming more of a trend.”

The bill

Robbescheuten’s bill breaks down as follows:

• 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: $676.48

[thor]

The same thing should apply to those who ski out of bounds.

[Kip Powick]

My first reaction was, hell yes charge them but...... for now I will side with those who perform the rescues and who, according to the press and their own web sites, believe that the victims should not be charged. Here is a goto to one of many positions taken by those who perform the rescues.

http://www.northshorerescue.com/services/charging-for-rescues/

You missed one part of their website....

North Shore Rescue is a volunteer community-based search and rescue team. Its members are from all walks of life but share a common interest in providing an important life-saving service to the public, 24 hours a day, every day of the year

[J.O.]

They had better start charging every driver who causes an accident; every homeowner whose negligence / error has a hand in a fire getting started; hell even every person whose failure to take care of themselves leads to an ambulance call. Otherwise they are discriminating against one type of person who requires assistance, based on nothing more than their location at the time of the call.

[DEFCON]

In spite of the SAR Tech's enjoyment of their work someone has to bring sense to the kind of operations they undertake for both, financial reasons and the risk to personnel.

The loss of a SAR Tech during the second and very long distance rescue of a couple of walrus hunters that just don't seem to know better was too expensive in both financial & loss of life terms.

[Kip Powick]

They had better start charging every driver who causes an accident; every homeowner whose negligence / error has a hand in a fire getting started; hell even every person whose failure to take care of themselves leads to an ambulance call. Otherwise they are discriminating against one type of person who requires assistance, based on nothing more than their location at the time of the call.

Big difference between Search and Rescue operations and normal 911 calls........

PS...There is no cure for stupidity............... and after being warned this guy figures he knows it all and goes out when everyone had been warned to stay off the ice.

Trust me Jeff, I ran RCC HFX for 4 years and the massive waste of funds for stupid incidents that we HAD TO RESPOND to with no recourse to collect expended funds was mind boggling.

[J.O.]

Kip, I know that there are many rescue calls that are both risky and frustrating to the rescuers. But it's unfair to suggest that SAR on the water is the only such issue and that the rescuees shoudld shoulder the cost of their rescue.

Have a conversation with the firefighters who enter a burning building to rescue the careless smoker from their easy chair, or who use the jaws of life to cut a wannabe Mario Andretti out of his wrecked Corvette while their colleagues hose down the fuel leak. Talk to the paramedics who have to administer CPR and then haul the guy with KFC on speed dial down three flights of stairs on a gurney. These folks have to respond to events of human stupidity and misadventure every day, often times putting their own lives at risk to render assistance. Any scheme to start billing for rescue services resulting from human stupidity had better have a clear definition of what is stupid vs what is just an accident. Otherwise, a good lawyer will shoot the plan full of holes in pretty short order.

[Kip Powick]

Jeff...to Clarify, RCC HZ is responsible for both sea/water and land SAR and I have no problem with spending funds on legitimate 'rescues'. My problem comes when persons knowingly do stupid things after they have been cautioned/warned NOT to do them and people are put at risk to rescue them.

Do you feel that when some nutbar wants to "break a record" by doing something utterly stupid, that we, as tax payers have to pay for this enterprise when the individual has been warned over and over that his venture is haphazard and foolish but sets forth anyway and we spend literally thousands of dollars "searching and rescuing" this fool ???

Do you think individuals who knowingly take on a course which they know will require a rescue and when it does, there should be no recourse to have the individual pay for the service?

Jeff, in all your examples, the 'victim' did not knowingly embark on a course that they KNEW would require a rescue...yes they were stupid, but they did not start their day by sayng, "doesn't matter what happens to me, I'll be rescued".

The subject in the opening post was a guy who ignored information that had been given to all but he was a "know-it-all" and knew better than the authorities, that he would be OK and now feels it is his "right" to not have to pay for his escapade and as a retired school principal, you would think he would know better.

Just my opinion, after enduring many years of stupid 'land and water' people and saying " WTF", when we got some of those calls

[DEFCON]

Most of these people, whether rescued by SAR or saved by local interventions, were meant to be members of the 'Darwin List'.

[mo32a]

The firefighters were going to get paid regardless of whether they slept in their cozy beds all night or went out and rescued somebody. That is what we pay taxes for. I can see billing him for the standby truck or whatever other costs they might not normally incur in their day to day operations.

OTOH in the case of volunteer rescue orgs, where the people don't get paid, I can see charging them for any equipment rental required (helicopters?) and fining them if they were doing something they shouldn't have been doing, ie skiing out of bounds.

[Specs]

• 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: $676.48

I would at least expect that the VFD knew they were responsible for lake rescues and had suitable gear on hand and they knew what to expect from the 911 call so why fourteen fire fighters and 3 trucks?

My point in that question is that the dummy has to have a chance to examine the bill and question some of the charges. Such a practice would then lead to others doing the same and eventually further loss of life as FDs try to match equipment to the expected situation and occasionally falling short.

"Hello - This is the 911 operator - May I please have your credit card number before I direct your call to the appropriate dept?"

[Seeker]

We are definitely not going to solve this issue here on the forum! I sure pity the people who have to try to decide when and how much to charge but agree that it should be done in certain circumstances. A person knowingly does something stupid and needs to get rescued - sure, bill them, but how do you define "knowingly"? Some fool ran into the back of my car the other day (minor damage only) because I had winter tires and he didn't; I stopped for the guy in front of me but the guy behind couldn't stop due to having all-season tires. He made a choice to not get winter tires, stupid in my opinion but not illegal. Same as going out on the ice in poor conditions, stupid but not illegal.

[Kip Powick]

but how do you define "knowingly"?

Ok..here is one example that really sticks in my memory.... A fisherman goes out and is scallop fishing. He happens to hit a gold mine of scallops and stays out until he runs out of gas and has to be towed in..(he privately tells his CG friend he knew he would be rescued and will probably do the same thing again...wink-wink)

He does it, (the same scenario), 5 times in the next 2 months and freely admits that he fishes until he is out of gas and knows he will be towed in.

Would you say he knowingly planned his own rescue each time ? The CG wanted to press charges......they were told by 'other' govt sources to "back-off".....( personally, I believe the source to be the MP for that area)

How much does it cost to run a Coast Guard Cutter and its crew out to this same vessel about 25-30 miles off-shore ..... 5 times ???

The only reason this did not make headlines is that during the 5 rescues, there were no 'real' May-Days in that area.

[Kip Powick]

Kip, it is my understanding that a lot of the SAR work is done by volunteer units in both Canada and the United States. I stand to be corrected but......

You are correct, they are invaluable resources everywhere, in Canada and the US,. In this case Scugog has a paid fire department and volunteers...who did what, and who was who, I do not know.

Many folks don't agree with what happened and personally, I think the "fee" was a bit high............ but I think it was justified.

How would you feel if your house was burning down and the FD was pulling a guy out of 3 feet of water because he was stupid and did not adhere to ample warnings concerning anyone being on the ice.

The sarcasim out there, carrying this to the extreme and giving silly examples of having to give a credit card number to get assistance...I mean really, how silly can you be. The issue is charging people for being grossly stupid.

There are stupid people out there...why not charge them for being stupid...BTW...no one objected to the $$$ charge for all those other guys that had to be rescued of the ice...was that because the "rate" was lower???

[Johnny]

But Robbescheuten, who has fished on Lake Scugog for 30 years, maintains he was safe until fog rolled in as darkness fell. He grew disoriented on his way back to shore, then fell through the ice and got stuck in mud and water up to his waist

"I was safe playing on the freeway, until the semi ran me over"

Another "old boy" who had best hang it up, lucky he only ended up in waist deep water and should have been wearing a watch.

As an avid skier we only skied OB, that is where the "good snow is" and the "hacks are not." As an "old boy," I have accepted my limits and gave that up two decades ago.

However, I do agree that if you want to live on the edge it shouldn't be the taxpayer covering your rescue.

[Seeker]

There is some precedent for paying a fee to be "rescued". If you slide off a road and need a tow truck - you're going to pay for that, in most jurisdictions if you call an ambulance you will be billed for it. In the USA I believe that if you're on a boat that isn't in imminent danger of sinking the USCG will simply call a commercial towing service for which you will be billed rather than tossing you a tow-line. A big topic of discussion on a boating forum I visit (that has a lot of US boaters on it) is the cost vs value of various pre-paid towing contracts. I don't think anyone would disagree with those who flagrantly abuse the public system being charged for their actions but the real heart of the matter is clarifying what will be charged for and what won't. Of course there will be some idiot somewhere who will freeze to death in the woods because he was afraid to call for help.

[mo32a]

but how do you define "knowingly"?

Ok..here is one example that really sticks in my memory.... A fisherman goes out and is scallop fishing. He happens to hit a gold mine of scallops and stays out until he runs out of gas and has to be towed in..(he privately tells his CG friend he knew he would be rescued and will probably do the same thing again...wink-wink)

He does it, (the same scenario), 5 times in the next 2 months and freely admits that he fishes until he is out of gas and knows he will be towed in.

Would you say he knowingly planned his own rescue each time ? The CG wanted to press charges......they were told by 'other' govt sources to "back-off".....( personally, I believe the source to be the MP for that area)

How much does it cost to run a Coast Guard Cutter and its crew out to this same vessel about 25-30 miles off-shore ..... 5 times ???

The only reason this did not make headlines is that during the 5 rescues, there were no 'real' May-Days in that area.

The same sort of thing happened routinely with the fishermen in Prince Rupert. They would go out and hit the mother lode, load the boat until there was no freeboard left, and then try to make it home. If the slightest blow came up they started screaming for help from the CG. Not a thought about lightning there load, just tow me to safety please so I can cash in.

[boestar]

You can get away with stupid for years. Stupid becomes the norm. But stupid eventually catches up to you. I'm still waiting.