Paying to be rescued?

**davereid** · 12th January 2010, 07:02

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3221...ll-for-service

Two kayakers plucked from the banks of the flooded Shotover River by helicopter after an empty kayak was spotted floating downstream have been billed $4000 for the rescue.

Queenstown Lakes District harbourmaster Marty Black said yesterday the Shotover River had been at its maximum in full flood, raging at about 260 cumecs on December 3, when an empty, upturned kayak was spotted floating past the Shotover Jet base.

Shotover Jet and all rafting operators had suspended operations for the day because the river was so high and dangerous.

"We put a helicopter up straight away ... we were sure we were looking for bodies because of the state of the river," Mr Black said.

The kayakers had been advised against going on the rapidly rising river, which was running at 130 cumecs when they put in and was close to 200 cumecs by the time the empty kayak was spotted, he said.

The two men, who were apparently experienced and living in the Queenstown area, should not have been up there, Mr Black said.

They had now been invoiced for almost two hours of helicopter flying and council staff time, totalling $4000, and were contesting the bill, claiming they didn't need rescuing, he said.

"Why should the community pay when it's a situation of their own making? It was not an option for us not to go – we must go (and search)," he said.

Mr Black said the pair had put in at MacLeod's Bluff and were retrieved from opposite sides of the river about 1km downstream. They had been "very pleased" to see the helicopter. The man from the upturned kayak had apparently got into difficulty when he hurt his finger, then lost his kayak, Mr Black said.

Although the men claimed conditions were fine further upstream, Mr Black said they should not have been kayaking on a rising river.

A friend driving the group's van had stopped off at a Skippers' resident's home to ask for help and the resident had raised the alarm.

Two weeks after this incident an empty jetboat was sighted floating below the Kawarau bungy bridge and bungy staff alerted Mr Black, who put a helicopter up immediately to search for any missing boaties.

"That guy had been fishing upstream and got into some quicksand – the boat took off before he could get out," Mr Black said.

The $55,000 to $60,000 boat had travelled through several rapids and miraculously escaped damage.

That boat owner was invoiced for about $1600, but had paid up happily.

**CookMySock** · 12th January 2010, 07:14

LOL helicopter rescue for hurt finger.

They should have waved the chopper off if they didn't want the assistance.

Steve

**davereid** · 12th January 2010, 07:18

Yeah, I sort of wonder how it might apply to bikers.

You fall off your trail bike, you are fine, but some fine member of the public decides you need rescuing, and you get a $4000 account. I'm not sure waving the chopper away would stop the bill arriving, the mone was already spent.

Is it now to be a requirement that you only do things the council approve of, or you will get a bill for rescues you didnt commission ?

**Mully** · 12th January 2010, 07:22

Shouldn't ACC be paying it - since his finger was injured.....

**Miscreant** · 12th January 2010, 07:26

Originally Posted by davereid

Yeah, I sort of wonder how it might apply to bikers.

You fall off your trail bike, you are fine, but some fine member of the public decides you need rescuing, and you get a $4000 account. I'm not sure waving the chopper away would stop the bill arriving, the mone was already spent.

Is it now to be a requirement that you only do things the council approve of, or you will get a bill for rescues you didnt commission ?

But the friend did ask for help and got help, so wasn't the rescue effectively commissioned?
The other point is that they were apparently advised not to go on the river. Whilst that in and of itself means little as some people will advise you against anything, but if you then need rescuing, well, why should we pay?

**davereid** · 12th January 2010, 07:31

Originally Posted by Miscreant

But the friend did ask for help and got help, so wasn't the rescue effectively commissioned?
The other point is that they were apparently advised not to go on the river. Whilst that in and of itself means little as some people will advise you against anything, but if you then need rescuing, well, why should we pay?

Yeah, its tricky... someone has to pay for the rescue - why it should always be the poor old taxpayer seems a bit harsh.

I can see all sorts of problems arising from this, a can of worms has been opened methinks..

**Usarka** · 12th January 2010, 07:39

If they don't actually need rescuing then it should be the busy-body pole-toker that called the rescuers that should pay.

**rachprice** · 12th January 2010, 08:05

I know when I was with search and rescue, if someone requested a helicopter they paid but if it was the search managers decision they didnt. Most gave some sort of donation anyway though

**sunhuntin** · 12th January 2010, 08:17

i think in the kayakers case, it was needed cos how on earth did the guy with the hurt finger plan on getting down the river minus his kayak?? plus if they were advised not to go, then it was their own dumbass fault.

personally, i would happily pay the chopper bill if it was needed. hell, i would even pay the ambo bill if it came to that but i think acc covers that for accidents.

**p.dath** · 12th January 2010, 08:22

A good question. Different people are prepared to take different risks. The public is happy to accept paying for the result of some risk, but there is obviously a line, where the public consider "adventurers" to have been negligent, and no longer want to pay for their risk.

It would be interesting to know the premise under which the emergency services were created.

Perhaps there needs to be some test, like for dangerous or careless driving. Would a "prudent" kayaker have taken the journey?

Then again, perhaps the mere threat of a fine will be enough to deter those taking extreme risk. If you know you are going to have to pay to be rescued, because you wont undertake some riskier activities (at least not without insurance).

A great threat question. At what point do you remove someone's personal choice, and say, no, you can't do it, it's too dangerous and society does not want to pay for the consequences.

If someone was 100% likely to need rescuing, should they be allowed to proceed? What about 80% likely? 50%? Where is the line?

**Mikkel** · 12th January 2010, 08:40

Originally Posted by sunhuntin

i think in the kayakers case, it was needed cos how on earth did the guy with the hurt finger plan on getting down the river minus his kayak?? plus if they were advised not to go, then it was their own dumbass fault.

personally, i would happily pay the chopper bill if it was needed. hell, i would even pay the ambo bill if it came to that but i think acc covers that for accidents.

Maybe you'd just wait it out - we don't know the details. I'd happily go hungry for a little while to save $4000 if you know what I mean.
If none of the kayakers had requested the rescue it doesn't seem right to bill them for it.

Another point: I fail to see the point of sending the helicopter out looking for bodies. I mean, if they expected someone to be dead why the bloody rush?

Maybe the solution is to install a cardswiper in the helicopter - then people can pay up front if they feel like being rescued. (and yes, I am not serious)

**jim.cox** · 12th January 2010, 08:57

Originally Posted by sunhuntin

i how on earth did the guy with the hurt finger plan on getting down the river minus his kayak??.

By Swimming.....

**Squiggles** · 12th January 2010, 08:57

They raised the alarm bell...

**crazyhorse** · 12th January 2010, 09:42

Originally Posted by davereid

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3221...ll-for-service

................... empty kayak was spotted floating downstream ..................The kayakers had been advised against going on the rapidly rising river, ...........................by the time the empty kayak was spotted, he said. .............They had been "very pleased" to see the helicopter

Well, I think this kinda speaks for itself. They were advised not to go out, and they did, they were also happy to see the rescuers - so, its just another example of "user pays"