Refusal to Pay Rescue Fee after Tourists Wilful Crime Rescued: Public Resources Should Save Me

category:Hot
 Refusal to Pay Rescue Fee after Tourists Wilful Crime Rescued: Public Resources Should Save Me


According to Voice of China, in recent years, wayward donkey friends ignored the safety warnings of scenic spots and committed frequent incidents. Earlier this month, tourists in Hefeng County, Enshi County, Hubei Province, visited undeveloped scenic spots. A sudden flash flood resulted in 12 deaths and 1 loss of contact. On August 12, Zhou Mou, a Cantonese man, was injured and lost his couplet after crossing Siniangshan Mountain in Sichuan illegally. After 36 hours of hard work, he rescued the trapped man safely and sent to medical treatment. Because of the timely search and rescue, the lost man was not in danger of his life. After the accident, according to the investigation of relevant departments, Zhou Mou did not go through the formalities of entering ditches and outdoor activities when he entered the scenic area. The Scenic Area Administration Bureau criticized and educated Zhou Mou according to law. According to the Regulations on the Management of National Nature Reserves and the Measures on the Management of Paid Rescue for Mountain Outdoor Sports Emergencies in Siniangshan Scenic Area, Zhou Mou was given 2000 yuan. The administrative penalty of the fine shall be 3,000 yuan of the expenses incurred in the rescue operation. This rescue is the first paid rescue since the Siniangshan Scenic Area Administration issued the Management Measures for Paid Emergency Rescue in September, 2018. It is also the first ticket for paid rescue in Siniangshan Scenic Area.

After the relevant administrative departments organize public rescue, who should bear the cost, triggering a wide discussion among the public. In the middle of this month, such an event happened in Yichang, Hubei Province. Two six-person driving tours in the local military area were rescued by local public security and firefighters after they were in danger of swimming in a nearby stream, ignoring the signs prohibiting swimming along the way and forbidding entry into the Grand Canyon in flood season. Six people escaped from danger and were recovered by local authorities for rescue expenses. Should the cost of rescue be borne by those wayward acts that ignore their own safety and management warnings?

Six donkey friends in Yichang, Hubei, were asked for rescue fees despite the warning of wild swimming in the scenic area

There are many rivers and streams in the Xialao River they went to. After entering the Xialao River, there are signs along the road forbidding swimming, including some entrances into the canyon. We all have tips forbidding outdoor exploration, so we feel that these tourists ignore all the tips around them.

After the rescue work, in order to further strengthen the warning education, Yichang Yiling District Cultural Tourism Bureau took the lead in organizing a multi-sectoral legal conversation with the parties.

At the beginning of 2019, the tourism department, public security department and Emergency Management Department of Yiling District have a normative document for the rescue of outdoor adventure tourists, which will be handled according to the process. We are in accordance with the provisions of the Tourism Law, tourists enter closed or inaccessible areas to generate rescue, tourists should bear the cost.

According to the Interim Measures for Recovery of Rescue Expenses for Outdoor Exploration Activities in Yiling District, the relevant departments also issued a Notice on Recovery of Rescue Expenses to the two families, and claimed recovery of rescue expenses to six personnel through civil procedure according to law. Sheng Yan, deputy director of Yiling District Culture and Tourism Bureau of Yichang City, introduced that the rescued tourists were still somewhat conflicted.

Generally speaking, its more understandable, but at first its more conflicting. They think,You should save me from public resources, why should I bear the cost behind it? We have repeatedly stressed to him that recourse to you is not an end, but more to warn more people not to risk.

Four Girls Mountain Scenic Spot Opens the First Paid Rescue Fine

On the 13th of this month, Zhou Mou, a Cantonese man, lost his couplet after crossing Siniangshan Mountain in Sichuan. Four Girls Mountain Scenic Area, together with local police in Xiaojin County, successfully rescued the man after 36 hours. Four Girls Mountain Scenic Area also issued the first paid rescue ticket in accordance with relevant regulations.

Yang Qingpei, director of Siniangshan Scenic Area Law and Regulation Department, said that the 3,000 yuan fine was calculated after the cost of rescue materials and personnel caused by the illegal crossing of Siniangshan.

The fee regulation of paid standard management is that last year we drafted and published by the outdoor management center in the whole Siniangshan scenic spot and some outdoor clubs in the community, and went to Aba Prefecture for the legal system to put on record. After the publication, we implemented the regulation of paid management.

Huangshan Scenic Area solicits opinions on the implementation of paid rescue

On the eve of May 1st last year, Huangshan Scenic Spot of Anhui Province issued the draft of Measures for the Implementation of Paid Rescue in Huangshan Scenic Spot. This is the first publicly released method for the implementation of paid rescue in China. Before and after the publication of the draft, there are two different voices of the public on this matter. Some people think that it is inappropriate to talk about money in the face of personal safety, but more voices believe that the implementation of paid rescue is a maintenance of tourism order. Liu Simin, director of the Tourism Research Institute of the Center for Cultural Creation Industry Research, Beijing Foreign Studies University, supports paid rescue with strict restrictions:

If tickets are collected within the scope of the scenic area, it is obligatory to provide the corresponding rescue services for tourists, but beyond the scope of the warning of the scenic area, then the consequences should be borne. The first principle of commitment is to limit conditions. Secondly, he should not aim at making profits. That is to say, the fees for scenic spots and local governments after rescue should not be higher than the cost.

Liu Simin admits that, at present, the implementation of paid rescue is only in a few scenic spots. More scenic spots that are still free of charge may have ethical considerations:

For this traveler in distress, even if he breaks into dangerous areas and emerges in such a dangerous situation, we are still looking forward to such rescue as Lei Fengs, but are unwilling to pay the price. In this kind of social psychology, if it is charged, it may have a negative impact, which is taboo in scenic spots. Secondly, such extreme events, although occurring from time to time, are relatively small compared with the huge tourist base. So many scenic spots dont want to lose too much because they are too small. There are many places, after all, also want more tourists to go, but also with a sense of gratitude to tourists, then the charge is bound to hurt feelings, so there are also concerns.

There is no need to worry that it will become a profit-making model. The implementation of paid fee-based rescue is a warning to tourists. When tourists anticipate the risk of both life and huge economic costs, they will act more cautiously, which in turn will make many tourists retreat. Dont take any more risks.

Rescue services are not entirely public welfare, and the rescued should bear the cost.

In the reporters report, we noticed that in this search and rescue operation in Hubei Point Military Region, the local government mobilized public security, fire and other official search and rescue forces, which consumed manpower, material resources and financial resources. Similar events occur every year as the number of donkey-friend adventures increases. It should be said that if a donkey friend is in a specified area and is in distress for objective reasons, the government should bear the cost of rescue. But if it is because of illegal access to the restricted area in distress, it is not appropriate for all the expenses to be paid by public finance, and it is reasonable for individuals to bear the expenses. After all, you are illegal, you are in distress, and you are rescued. Therefore, in the long run, rescue services should not be entirely public welfare, as the rescued should bear certain rescue costs.

Indeed, with the popularization of outdoor activities, the marketization of outdoor rescue has become an indispensable part of the social rescue system, which can not only enable the victims to obtain more professional rescue services, but also save the cost of public resources. As experts say, this can also warn and restrain the behavior of offenders to a certain extent. u3002 However, it is undeniable that at present, the marketization of outdoor rescue industry is also facing some moral hazards. Therefore, it needs to be emphasized that such marketization of paid rescue must be carried out within the framework of law, such as under what circumstances to carry out paid rescue, and how many fines and penalties, all of which need to be scientifically detailed. To plan.

(function () {(window. slotbydup = window. slotbydup | []). push ({id:6374560, container:ssp_6374560, size:300,250, display:inlay-fix, async: true});} (); source of this article: responsible editor of CCTV: Guoping_B7442