View Single Post
Old 10-13-2017, 11:26 AM   #34
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Trail Boss View Post
I disagree with your theory that the presence of more rangers will have people become less cautious about their personal safety. If my community were to double the number of ambulances and EMT's, I wouldn't become less cautious at home.
But if you took away all the EMT's, do you think we'd see as many deaths and/or injuries from risky behaviors? If all of a sudden we took away the Ranger force (which I'm not advocating for by the way), and those weekly 15 rescues turned into 15 deaths or missing person cases, do you think there'd be just as many people going out and getting lost in the following weeks?

I'd argue no. When people realize there are consequences for their actions and that their personal safety is in their hands, not someone else's, they'll be a lot more careful about how they behave.

Again, I'm all for having a Ranger force. And if the Rangers think they are being overworked, I'm all for assigning them more funding and increasing their manpower. However, it's important to understand that the Rangers, and the rescue capabilities they provide, serve as a response to an ongoing, and increasing, problem; their presence is not a solution.

We all agree that rescuing people in need is the humane thing to do. Even if someone got lost or hurt due to their own negligence, I think we all agree a rescue effort is warranted. If the possibility of a lonely death isn't going to dissuade ill-prepared hikers from going out, a hefty fine or some form of legal punishment might serve as a viable alternative.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote