If someone causes the search they pay for it... I absolutely agree.

But if they died, who pays?

if they have kids, who pays for them until they are 18? (I believe current SS survivor benefits are around $700/month per kid or something like that)... paid by taxpayers
if they have kids who pays for the kids' medical care when the family income is cut in half or worse? CHIP? Medical assistance?.... paid by taxpayers
who pays for the investigation time needed to find the cause of the accident?

Even if they don't die, or don't have dependants, who pays for their medical care if they are severely injured (physically or even worse, brain injured)?
Most normal medical insurances have limits, or extreme copays that would bankrupt many families, again causing them to fall back on State or Federal health care...

The state isn't going to make enough in fines in a year to cover what 1 death or severe injury would cost the state or federal gov't in the long run.

I don't know what the 'perfect answer' is to balance person rights vs states rights (or in this case I would even use the term tax payer's rights)
Maybe require those who don't want to use the available safety gear to sign waivers allowing no tax supported benefits because of their choice?

Everyone has the choice about following any law, but if you choose to not do so, shouldn't your (or your survivors) rights be negated when it comes to collecting benefits for care required due to your act? If you want the right to choose, be prepared to be responsible for the consequences of that choice.

ORIGINAL: Fisherlady2

If someone causes the search they pay for it... I absolutely agree.

But if they died, who pays?

if they have kids, who pays for them until they are 18? (I believe current SS survivor benefits are around $700/month per kid or something like that)... paid by taxpayers
if they have kids who pays for the kids' medical care when the family income is cut in half or worse? CHIP? Medical assistance?.... paid by taxpayers
who pays for the investigation time needed to find the cause of the accident?

Even if they don't die, or don't have dependants, who pays for their medical care if they are severely injured (physically or even worse, brain injured)?
Most normal medical insurances have limits, or extreme copays that would bankrupt many families, again causing them to fall back on State or Federal health care...

The state isn't going to make enough in fines in a year to cover what 1 death or severe injury would cost the state or federal gov't in the long run.

I don't know what the 'perfect answer' is to balance person rights vs states rights (or in this case I would even use the term tax payer's rights)
Maybe require those who don't want to use the available safety gear to sign waivers allowing no tax supported benefits because of their choice?

Everyone has the choice about following any law, but if you choose to not do so, shouldn't your (or your survivors) rights be negated when it comes to collecting benefits for care required due to your act? If you want the right to choose, be prepared to be responsible for the consequences of that choice.

I am prepared.

All of those problems are the same if the person is wearing a life jacket and dies of hypothermia within minutes anyway. So, in the cold weather months what does this law accomplish, really? I'd say, nothing.

Can my family sue the PFBC for not saving me fast enough?

ORIGINAL: ShutUpNFish

What if the father goes overboard while fishing with his kds and drowns or dies of hypothermia....a couple youngsters out in the middle of a lake in the cold....anyone else in any sort of danger?? Seatbelt or Helmut the same?? I don't think so...

If the youngsters aren't capable that is, old enough to operate the boat on their own, in an emergency, they should not be out in that kind of cold weather. That means, the father is a dumass for putting them in that situation to begin with.

ORIGINAL: D-nymph

ORIGINAL: Fisherlady2

If someone causes the search they pay for it... I absolutely agree.

But if they died, who pays?

if they have kids, who pays for them until they are 18? (I believe current SS survivor benefits are around $700/month per kid or something like that)... paid by taxpayers
if they have kids who pays for the kids' medical care when the family income is cut in half or worse? CHIP? Medical assistance?.... paid by taxpayers
who pays for the investigation time needed to find the cause of the accident?

Even if they don't die, or don't have dependants, who pays for their medical care if they are severely injured (physically or even worse, brain injured)?
Most normal medical insurances have limits, or extreme copays that would bankrupt many families, again causing them to fall back on State or Federal health care...

The state isn't going to make enough in fines in a year to cover what 1 death or severe injury would cost the state or federal gov't in the long run.

I don't know what the 'perfect answer' is to balance person rights vs states rights (or in this case I would even use the term tax payer's rights)
Maybe require those who don't want to use the available safety gear to sign waivers allowing no tax supported benefits because of their choice?

Everyone has the choice about following any law, but if you choose to not do so, shouldn't your (or your survivors) rights be negated when it comes to collecting benefits for care required due to your act? If you want the right to choose, be prepared to be responsible for the consequences of that choice.

I am prepared.

All of those problems are the same if the person is wearing a life jacket and dies of hypothermia within minutes anyway. So, in the cold weather months what does this law accomplish, really? I'd say, nothing.

Can my family sue the PFBC for not saving me fast enough?

Makes the bodies easier to find...

What if a kid is on the back of a motor cycle, with father without a helmut. It goes over an embankement, and kills the father. Who is there to rescue the kid and recover the bike?

What if the same thing happens in a car. Who is there to resuce the kid and recover the car?

Regardless, why is it or just about anything that common sense should provide, a law?

BenC's analogy of sunblock is perfect.

edit - I thought that was S-10 that said that.

I wonder if 1/2 of those posting here actually read what they post. Really scary stuff...

Yeah, its smart to go out on cold water in a small craft without a PFD...how dumb am I?...Stupid is as stupid does and please dont ask to be rescued 'cos you know better...lol

ORIGINAL: Grendel

Yeah, its smart to go out on cold water in a small craft without a PFD...how dumb am I?...Stupid is as stupid does and please dont ask to be rescued 'cos you know better...lol

Who said it was smart? The same people who said "they can't afford a PFD but can afford booze and smokes", those would be the people in your head, yes?

Several people did say, it's not any of the government's business what they do in their boats, smaller than 16' in December.

Are you still a deputy with the PFBC?

I'm looking to hammer some still. Thinking to come mup next week. With gas prices the way they are, any yinz know how far them still are on Walnut. I usually hit the wall, but thinking to venture up stream past the bridge out side of the parking lot. I heard them still swim up that far n'at. Anyone know if power bait works on them still up ere? Is it fine to rope 3 and keep on fishin?

Thanks in advance.

BTW - I've been fishen still for about 40 years.

I usually hit the wall,

Be sure to wear your life jacket. People have fallen off there you know.

Are you for this rule, because it'll give you more of an opportunity to bust out your badge, deputy dog? Just askin'.

I didn't realize he was "da man". End of conversation

As to the last comment - you have made the same general error I made with the money issue. the ruling has no bearing on my status apart from being an owner of a kayak. If you wish to challenge my statement on this I can certainly supply you with names and numbers for verification purposes.

That would make us even up to this point. However, I get a point for an error you make...

"Several people did say, it's not any of the government's business what they do in their boats." That is much different than what you posted "that does not mean the the people have to blindly agree with their government." So are they complaining or challenging the authority of the governmnet to make decisions on COMMONWELATH waters? Please clarify. Complaining is fine, however challenging the right of the government in this case is less than informed. Reading the State Constitution would clarify any misgivings on this.

Which one will it be?

ORIGINAL: Grendel


That would make us even up to this point. However, I get a point for an error you make...

"Several people did say, it's not any of the government's business what they do in their boats." That is much different thatn what you posted "that does not mean the the people have to blindly agree with their government." So are they complaining or challenging the authority of the governmnet to make decisions on COMMONWELATH waters? Please clarify. Complaining is fine, however challenging the right of the government in this case is less than informed.

Which one will it be?

you can't be serious.

haha, this isn't your into to Criminal Justice class, bro.

The law is ridiculous. I won't abide by it. Hope to see you on the river, deputy. You can write me a ticket, I'll give you a beer, from the cooler in the boat, if you print neatly.

ORIGINAL: Grendel

LMAO! If you only had the slightest clue! I can assure you that no ticket will be coming from me.

Oh, ok. No problem then.