PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House

How would it be even remotely possible to enforce this?

The idea, I imagine, would be to pave the way for fee-for-rescue penalties if you needed emergency services and didn't have a PLB to initiate them.

The idea, I imagine, would be to pave the way for fee-for-rescue penalties if you needed emergency services and didn't have a PLB to initiate them.

Precisely. And now you approach the point where it is not so easy to refute State logic. Nevermind that seatbelt and helmet laws save lives ~ they reduce public expenses, and this is how the arguement will be framed, besides the 'for your own good' part.

Choice and responsibility nevertheless remain pillars of my life, as apparently is the case with others here. It influences how I vote because it affects the nature of, and my preference for, the world I'm in touch with ~ not that an absence of all such laws would make it a perfect place.

The trajectory is such that it is likely that it is only a matter of time before we see increased backcountry safety legislation. From proposals such as this one, to taxes on sport/alpine/snomo etc. gear as revenue for enforcement and relevant public services.

Pushback remains possible and vital, and if that's your thing, then find all the most logical arguements possible, such as Marcus' earlier point about false alarms, and send them on. Nevermind that PLB profiteers are in bed with law makers ~ that, apparently, is business as usual..

The idea, I imagine, would be to pave the way for fee-for-rescue penalties if you needed emergency services and didn't have a PLB to initiate them.

And then, fee-for-rescue for PLB false alarms. Then they've got you coming and going.

I can't wait for the NPS to pass this rule. That would fund lots more rangers to do spot checks (pun intended) and hand out tickets with large fines for violators....

If they are truly worried about saving lives why are they only targeting climbers? Snowmobilers, hunters, hikers also get lost in the backcountry. If this law was passed would Washington have professional rescue available like the Alps and would rescue insurance become available?

"Lots of false-calls which could put rescuers in harm's way unnecessarily."
-The issue that I have is that with the increase of false calls SAR becomes overloaded to a point of malfunction. True emergencies are delayed or neglected because of an overloaded system responding to "soft" calls. This could require private contracting to be implemented, resulting in forcing skyrocketing rescue fees and eventually higher user fees as well as a worst case scenario of privatizing of national parks, forests and wilderness areas.
Okay, maybe that is a little extreme and reactionary, but I've seen weirder things happen.

Reply I recieved from a email to Rep. Mary Roberts. It's fairly non committal, and I did not include any feedback regarding avy beacons, but it seems to imply that the bill is not going anywhere...
<blockquote>
Rob –

Thank you for your blog about HB 2619. You’ve brought some good information to the attention of those of us who thought this sounded like a good idea. You’ve also demonstrated the value of the legislative process that demands that a bill go through a thorough review before becoming law. If you hadn’t sent this information, it is likely that it would have come out when it was reviewed in a hearing. There might have also been arguments and information supporting the bill.

At this point, no hearing has been scheduled. If none is scheduled in the next few days, the bill will be dead for the session. I’m still glad I signed on as a sponsor. I supported a constituent’s idea, and I learned new information that may help me or someone else develop legislation that will help save lives.

Mary Helen
</blockquote>