Harrison Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) $200 bucks each. Seems low to me.. My linkhttp://www.thestar.com/news/article/1153484--anglers-rescued-from-lake-simcoe-ice-floe-ordered-to-pay-200-each Edited March 29, 2012 by Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Seems STUDID IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 $200 to save your life? Sounds cheap to me. Live and learn I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Caster Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) 200 is the hourly cost of a small excavator and a triax, not helicopters and rescue boats! Where the heck did they come up with 200 Edited March 29, 2012 by Rod Caster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Not sure that would even cover wages of the call in emergency staff. PS. mods it appears there was two threads posted about this at the exact same time, if it is an issue feel free to pull this one if you like. Edited March 29, 2012 by Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 $200 to save your life? Sounds cheap to me. Live and learn I guess. Here I go again..... I agree with you....LOL it is cheap if you look at it that way........However, that is why we pay taxes.....this may be the first time these folks finally got some service from their government and BAM they are going to be double charged.....Now don't get me wrong.....I am not promoting dangerous things.....but as a firefighter for over 35 years we have many times rescued people from stupid acts.....but we never send them a bill because they have been supporting us for all the years prior to this service....I don't think any of them went out on the ice to get rescued.... A act like this could snowball......what about a nut case you have to arrest....maybe a huge confrontation with police and fire....do you know not only throw him in jail but also fine his family assets to pay for the police and or fire services needed at the scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 BB, I really think it's the township that doesn't want to pick up the tab.. That's probably the only reason they are getting charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenboater Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think extenuating circumstances such as unsafe ice warnings tipped it this way and I have no problems with it in this particular situation. There are some things that happen and some things that shouldn't happen. This *shouldn't* have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 What if it was one person. Do you think they would get charged the rescue fee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 BB, I really think it's the township that doesn't want to pick up the tab.. That's probably the only reason they are getting charged. But weren't all those services already in place and paid for ? ? ? This is or should be the # 1 reason we have a government in place.....we waste a lot of money on many undesirables everyday and no bats a eye......but now these tax paying folks are going to get billed for a service that they have supported through all the taxes they have already paid and will continue to pay.....just doesn't seem right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) But weren't all those services already in place and paid for ? ? ? This is or should be the # 1 reason we have a government in place.....we waste a lot of money on many undesirables everyday and no bats a eye......but now these tax paying folks are going to get billed for a service that they have supported through all the taxes they have already paid and will continue to pay.....just doesn't seem right to me. Problem is the people that were rescued aren't paying taxes in this township... It's not very big... and to get slapped with a huge bill like this? I can see their point. But I also see your point as well. Bottom line is those people shouldn't have been out on the ice in the first place.. Edited March 29, 2012 by BillM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Problem is the people that were rescued aren't paying taxes in this township... It's not very big... and to get slapped with a huge bill like this? I can see their point. But I also see your point as well. Bottom line is those people shouldn't have been out on the ice in the first place.. How about the person from across the country that causes a accident on the 401 and emergency services are needed.....do you see where this is heading...it's a very slippery slope...a can of worms that should not be opened.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I often disagree with Bob but in my opinion he is 'bang on' here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I often disagree with Bob but in my opinion he is 'bang on' here. I am still torn. You should be accountable if you put yourself is a dangerous situation and have been warned. Your the one flipping the coin IMO. But Billy does make some good points. Where do you draw the line? Extreme skiers? Rock Climbers? Guys fishing in a Canoe in February at the nuke plant outflow in 4 fters? Edited March 29, 2012 by Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike rousseau Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Problem is the people that were rescued aren't paying taxes in this township... It's not very big... and to get slapped with a huge bill like this? I can see their point. But I also see your point as well. Bottom line is those people shouldn't have been out on the ice in the first place.. i agree they should not have been out there... but at the same time there are lots of un educated anglers out there... there are still guys here that dont know the walleye limit changed like 4-5 years ago... or that pike have a closed season now... we dont all access the resources available to us... i dont listen to the radio or read the newspaper... and if it wasnt for ofc i wouldnt here most of the warnings/news... considering this happens from time to time... id say first rescue is free because we do pay taxes for these services... but it goes on your record... after that make em pay...and make em pay big.... like that guy who said it was his third time being rescued... that means hes put rescuers lives at risk 3 times now and hasnt learned from it... people get into jams here and there... thats life... i dunno... ive never gone through the ice so its hard to say... id rather play it safe and get my tackle ready for spring and make carp bait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Bob Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 My last response (to both threads here)......I just can't believe how fast fellow anglers here are so quick to rip into their comrades instead of standing besides them when their support is needed the most....it could easily been anyone of us among that group that need help from our paid government emergency services. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grimsbylander Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think the $200 is only meant as a deterrent as it no way comes close to covering rescue dollars. The fine for not wearing a seatbelt is not equivilent to the cost of a life either. Just a guess though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 My last response (to both threads here)......I just can't believe how fast fellow anglers here are so quick to rip into their comrades instead of standing besides them when their support is needed the most....it could easily been anyone of us among that group that need help from our paid government emergency services. Bob There was no reason for them to be out on the ice... Warm temps, 80km/h winds for 3 days beforehand... Warnings on the TV, radio... There's a reason why no one from OFC was out there, we know better. Idiots like these give everyone else a bad name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hey maybe the $200 bucks will deter the one wizard from going for a swim for the 4th time.... probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenboater Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) my last word (ha ha) The fire dept report stated "...that there was not evidence of good judgment being used by the fishermen when they went out on the ice..." Personally, that's all I need to know. Also from the same story, and for those who may not have actually read it... "The township adopted a fees and charges bylaw two years ago to deter people from taking unnecessary risks on the lake, but it had never been enforced." Perhaps things will change next season if an example has been set and if not, they shouldn't whinge when the get a bill. Edited March 29, 2012 by woodenboater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoppy Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I worry about this. To me it's like the boy who cried wolf story. The man doesn't want us on the ice at all. Why would we heed the unsafe ice warnings when they are constant. If something goes wrong on the ice they can always blame the anglers because there are constant unsafe ice warnings. I have seen barrie police officers on local tv (ctv barrie) tell us there is no such thing as safe ice and no one should ever ice fish. Ice conditions reporting is spotty and inaccurate therefore should not be the benchmark that these anglers are judged by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think they were Incredibally stupid to be out on the ice. This whole thing makes my blood boil but to make them pay for something that has been paid for 10 times over by some of the highest taxed people on the planet (us) is silly. It's not like they pulled a Peter MacKay who got the search and rescue team to pick him up on a fly in fishing trip because he wanted to bask in his cultural elitism. Let's make HIM pay first and then we can go after these other dummies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 I worry about this. To me it's like the boy who cried wolf story. The man doesn't want us on the ice at all. Why would we heed the unsafe ice warnings when they are constant. If something goes wrong on the ice they can always blame the anglers because there are constant unsafe ice warnings. I have seen barrie police officers on local tv (ctv barrie) tell us there is no such thing as safe ice and no one should ever ice fish. Ice conditions reporting is spotty and inaccurate therefore should not be the benchmark that these anglers are judged by. Interesting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richyb Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 People were sitting at home on their computers all winter long saying stay off the ice. The news shows where a creek goes into the lake and says " stay off the ice" They had no clue what they were talking about without actually going out there on the ice to find out. I was fishing where it broke off a couple days before that and the ice was alright. I was on 5" of ice and there were lots of people around. I actually woke up that morning to go out but said "SCREW- THAT" , the wind was blowing hard and straight up the bay and it would be stupid to be out there because you could tell that it could break off and float away. It was all the wind it wasnt the ice. Even on those little ice thickness cards they tell you that safe ice for walking is 4" clear ice. Im related to one guy that got rescued and know quite a few others and they were STUPID for being out there with that WIND not because of the ice thickness. I bet every ice fisherman in here has fished on ice that was thinner than the ice they were on just without the crazy wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 If you start to charge people for rescue operations, you will now run the risk of people trying to rescue themselves to avoid paying for it. Personally, I feel that 200 bucks is reasonable considering the one guys had been rescued 3 times. He has not learned his lesson, and THAT is why they are being charged. If it was me, I would go and thank them, donate thé $200 and apologize for my poor judgement. But hey, that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now