Posts: 11,290
Threads: 767
Joined: Sep 2012
rescuing fools
The difficulty is fools don't recognize they are fools even after they're lost.
Case in point, I knew someone about 10 years ago who was rescued from the lava flow in the Kalapana area. He made sure to inform everyone later that the helicopter did not find him, he saw the heli first, and waved them in for a landing. I guess that makes it more of a taxi service than a rescue, in his mind.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Yes, Eric, I have, but that and my ability or lack thereof to "see the writing on the wall" has absolutely no bearing on the conversation. My job experience isn't what's being discussed.
I'd like to point out that people who find themselves in the employ of a dangerous job are responsible for their position and circumstance. Those individuals are not forced to do anything they don't want and if they don't want to be in a profession that may entail risk then they can (probably should) pick a different profession. Using risk as an excuse is absurd when it virtually defines their role or capacity in the profession to which they belong.
From what I've read the issue of contention happens to be the obligation of emergency rescue employees to rescue those in need. To which I have two remarks, first as stated above that very scenario or circumstance would seem to be exactly their job description. Second, if it is agreed that some circumstances are beyond the 'risk level' deemed acceptable for rescue personnel to undertake then why not merely allow the rescue personnel the option of declining rather than forbidding more 'risk accepting' individuals the chance to pursue their activity whatever risk that may be.
I'm not sure if posted signage or a waiver requirement of any taking risks would be more acceptable but if this could be a compromise of some sort then perhaps we could reach an outcome that would make both sides happy.
Also, Jackson, not sure where you are going with your question of "have you ever hiked Captain's Trail at night?" But I don't see that any one individuals particular experience or ability should have any bearing on policy or restriction of rights or public access. It seems as arbitrary as stating "only those with green eyes may be guides for a tour company."
I would like to pose that expanding rights by giving emergency personnel the option to not engage in rescue operations where individuals have been warned of imminent risk, rather than limiting rights by disallowing public access would be a better compromise. I think limiting peoples options and believing you have a say in what other people can or can't do has a pretty bad track history in almost every society. That said I'm not advocating anarchy just pointing out that attempting to control others actions nearly always ends poorly: see prohibition.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
The 80's and 90's in Kalapana "back in the day" also had a problem with lost or disoriented visitors stumbling through peoples yards while they tried to deal with a serious situation.
The County run "Ocean entry" site was a much better solution; but wouldn't have existed without an express agreement between the County and the local property owners that the Lava was on. It also had a convenient road leading directly to it.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
rj says;
" That said I'm not advocating anarchy just pointing out that attempting to control others actions nearly always ends poorly: see prohibition"
snork says; Control others actions, Ha Ha; See "Speed Limits", "Red Lights", "Smoking in Theatres", and yes..."Jaywalking". These restrictions on our freedom are only in place to control us.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Try reread:
i'm not advocating anarchy
nearly always
I see your point though, but despite that - Devils advocate -
Opinion is relative but perhaps apples to oranges with speed limits, red lights (driving is a privlege not a right).
Smoking in theatres and jaywalking nothing comes to mind immediately I'll have to redirect to the italicized statements above which I pulled from my previous post.
Posts: 1,513
Threads: 18
Joined: Oct 2014
quote:
Originally posted by snorkle
The 80's and 90's in Kalapana "back in the day" also had a problem with lost or disoriented visitors stumbling through peoples yards while they tried to deal with a serious situation.
The County run "Ocean entry" site was a much better solution; but wouldn't have existed without an express agreement between the County and the local property owners that the Lava was on. It also had a convenient road leading directly to it.
The county ocean entry site was seriously lame if you had free hiking range prior and for decades. They were too far away and too crammed with tourists, no elbow room.
The gov needs to butt out, and stop controlling inquisitive hikers who want to take risks and instead go after the predatory criminals. When they have caught them all then come back and we can discuss where people walk on public lands and vacated private property.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
In Kalapana, the Government was protecting the property rights of the local residents. They also had a HFD Paramedic at the site for the occaisional injury. If you would have asked the County workers at the ocean entry(Hauanio's, Keliíhoómalu's, Ka'awaloa's, Kuamoó's, and others) about entering their property you may or may not have been granted permission. To enter without permission is trespassing.
The only way to access the ocean entry legally was along the cliffs from Uncle Roberts (Dangerous) or follow the lava covered State highway(impossible).
Most trespassers just cut through private property from the end of the highway. Some scientists and photo journlists had permission. Most of the land owners affected were the few large Hawaiian Ohana that are so well known in Kalapana. Trespassing there without the permission of the owners is what is truly lame.
Would you let me cut through your yard unannounced and without permission to photograph a sunset or vista? Add to that the stress of Lava, a tourist/press invasion, and tell me about My right to roam free through your yard. Oh, and If I hurt myself, you'll be hearing from my attorney because you're liable.
When the Lava comes to a safe and legal place the County will provide; as they have always done. Go ahead and trespass if you like, but please don't snivel about it if you are caught.
Mahalo to the County for protecting citizens from the curious and insensitive; and Mahalo to our first responders for risking injury while rescuing the stupid.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
That edit button sure is a blessing in disguise when utilized properly!
Posts: 1,513
Threads: 18
Joined: Oct 2014
Trespassing there without the permission of the owners is what is truly lame. -snorkle
Lava covered private property and no one knew where the pins were for years. You seem a little fussy, then you say.....
Oh, and If I hurt myself, you'll be hearing from my attorney because you're liable. -snorkle
Yeah right buddy, the answer to everything....sue when you don't get your way or to go after money that's not yours. How special.
Posts: 10,486
Threads: 347
Joined: Apr 2009
I'm having a hard time following your logic, Punatic007:
"Yeah right buddy, the answer to everything....sue when you don't get your way or to go after money that's not yours. How special."
Let me get this straight. You think it is wrong that a property owner would sue someone who illegally and criminally trespassed on their property while being paid to do so? It's OK to lead a bunch of people through someone's private property without the property owner's permission? Does the owner get a share of the money?
I'm wondering who really is going after money that isn't theirs.
