www.theotherpress.ca

Opinions.

 

Poaching funds

lost skiers should pay
for their own rescue

By Eric Wilkins, Staff Writer

A few weeks ago, a man was

illed by an avalanche
near the Revelstoke Mountain
Resort while skiing out of
bounds. While the loss of
human life is always a serious
event, I find it difficult to
conjure up any kind of real
sympathy in situations like
these.

When someone ducks the
ropes, it’s a conscious decision,
not an accident. There’s no
gray area. There’s no, “Oh, |
thought I was still within the
boundary.” For those unaware
of the lingo, “poaching”
actually means “to go out of
bounds.” Resorts take special
care to ensure that proper
signage is in plain sight and
impossible to miss. At the
risk of sounding completely
redundant here, the decision to
leave patrolled areas is made
knowingly and willingly. In
any other circumstance, this
generally indicates that the
individual is aware they are
responsible for his/her actions,
so why should we regard these
incidents any differently?

Taking responsibility
can mean many different
things. Sometimes a simple

admittance that one was at
fault is sufficient. However, in
this case, taking responsibility
should primarily be in the
monetary sense. Rescues

cost money. A lot of money.
While some resorts charge
their patrons to an extent,

the bill is often picked up by
the government. And as we
all know, “the government”
equal’s the common man’s tax
dollars. What I’m saying is that
those who are in desperate
pursuit of fresh snow should
have to foot the bill if they
need help.

Of course, there’s a
downside to this proposed
change. The argument that is
most commonly brought up
is the fact that people may be
afraid to call for help or even
try to be found if they can’t
afford it; it’s believed that
this financial fear could lead
to many unnecessary deaths.
Another possibility is that
friends and family members
might try to stage a rescue of
their own to avoid the fee. The
result of this could be dozens
of unqualified searchers
bumbling over dangerous
terrain, which, ironically,
might lead to more losses.

My response to these
concerns? So what? Honestly,
I’m not trying to be callous
here, but why should
taxpayers have to watch
their hard-earned dough
go to waste on bailing out

 

Sun Peaks, Cypress Mountain stress backcountry safety, warn skiers to stay in bounds | Photo courtesy of Thinkstock

some selfish moron? And if
someone gives the usual spiel
about how you can’t put a
dollar amount on a human
life and cost shouldn’t even
be considered, then why
would people think twice
about having to pay for their
own rescue? Their lives are
priceless, right? Why is it
perfectly normal for citizens
to go into debt for various
purchases like cars, houses,
or even more trivial items
like couches and televisions,
but the thought of spending
a dime on their own lives is
considered utterly ridiculous?
Get your priorities straight.
Adding to this, in case
it’s been lost in the kerfuffle,
we're talking about skiers
and snowboarders, here.
They spend untold amounts
of money each year on rides

to and from mountains,
gear, passes, and sometimes
lodging. It’s a bit of an
expensive hobby. Obviously
not every winter enthusiast
is rolling in cash, but if they
can manage to pay for the
luxury of hitting the slopes on
a consistent basis, then they
aren't exactly scraping by in
the poor house, either.

To those who manage to
continue stubbornly holding
onto their belief that public
funds should be spent on
saving human lives without
so much as a second thought,
I have to say that I completely
agree. However, I’d much
prefer that money be spent
on people who deserve that
care; $100,000—a figure
commonly exceeded by rescue
operations—would be a
welcome sum to any hospital

budget, for example. Given
the choice between spending
an exorbitant amount on a
few self-centred risk takers or
making lasting improvements
to our healthcare system—
which would aid an untold
number of people—I don’t
think anyone in their right
mind would take any time to
settle on the latter.

Final note here is that,
in their self-absorbed quest
to find pow and/or avoid
gapers, these people place not
only themselves, but, more
importantly, their rescuers at
risk. Search and rescue teams,
despite their training, can also
fall prey to the unpredictable
dangers of nature. If thrill-
seekers have no regard for
their own lives, they should
at least consider the impact
they’re having on others’.

Should employees look into their boss background?

By Sonia Panesar, Contributor

| ave you ever thought
about turning the tables

when it comes to getting a new
job? All the interviews you go
through, the background checks,
the references, etc.—what if
your boss had to go through

the same things? This thought
didn’t occur to me until a recent
encounter.

I was approached at the
mall by a stranger who asked if
I was interested in getting a job,
and I was. After jotting down
some information, she said that
I would receive an email. A few
days later, I received an email
about some information sessions
that they were holding, and

the email requested that I reply
regarding which session I would
be attending.

On the day of the session,
I received a phone call asking
whether I would be attending
the session, which I had
completely forgotten about.
After a brief conversation, I said
that I would be there. It started
at 6 p.m. in one of the rooms at
Douglas College, and we signed
in ona form that we were given
to fill out. There were around 30
people in the room, from high
schoolers to older people who
looked around 50. There were
three representatives, one of
whom was going through the
slide show, asking questions,
and trying very hard to convince
us that this was a great job.

I went home that evening
thinking that this might actually
be cool, even though it would
be a labour-intensive job. Since
I wasn’t able to attend the
training session that night, I
received another phone call
about a training session and
said that I would be up for it.

I notified my family members
about it and they asked me for
specific details since this session
was going to be held pretty late:
8 p.m. I dug for information. I
decided to Google the company
and explore what the Internet
had to offer. Initially looking at
their website—which was fairly
well-constructed—I then moved
on and decided to have a look
at what previous employees
had to say about this job; what

I read changed my mind within
seconds.

The comments about the
job seemed unbelievable: an
extremely labour-intensive job
which doesn’t make you $2,000
weekly. One person said that by
the end of the day, the skin on
the soles of his feet was peeling;
another mentioned how they
were “debriefed” in a tacky
warehouse. They had to rent
a machine for $10. They were
given perhaps an instruction or
two, and figuring out how the
machine worked was entirely
up to them—as was the amount
they made. After being dropped
off in a neighbourhood at eight
in the morning, they would
have to go knocking on doors
and asking people if they

were interested in having their
lawns aerated. One person in
particular made $10 working
from eight in the morning till
nine in the evening. This really
threw me, let alone all the other
comments I read.

It is generally said that you
shouldn’t believe what you read
on the Internet, and seeing is
believing. I would say that this
is an exception to that rule, and I
am grateful that I found out this
company is nothing more than
propaganda. When you get a
new job, you should do yourself
a favour and ask around about
your boss to be, or even do
something as simple as going on
Google to see what people have
to say.

15