Well, not every place uses volunteers. That in itself is a huge debate, esp. in fire/ems circles. Another small point of contention is that ambulances charge, but don't nessarily get paid. Just like those whopping hospital bills that send people spiraling into bankruptcy. As for the firefighters getting called out, one could argue that they're there to prevent the fire from spreading rather than save your property. You ever see a house fire with a good outcome? They're pretty rare.

I think the big sticking point here is was this kid negligent? I doubt it. Even if that guy in the paper said "he went up, I'd go down" well, is that guy and Eagle Scout? Is he in prime physical condition? I'm guessing he's probably in decent shape but middle age - so why is he allowed to pass judgement and call the kid negligent based on his own standards? If anything, what a normal person would do should be based on teens and early 20's people. It's ridiculous to apply a standard that would theoretically involve newborns through centaurians. Any normal 90 year old wouldn't go hiking, so does that make everyone in the backcountry negligent?

I wonder if all this hooplah and dissent would arise if the kid WASN'T and Eagle Scout? Would we be sad if those skiiers from this past winter (that no one noticed and subsequently one died) were charged?