Saturday, June 21, 2008

Man Gets Fined for Using Snowmobile Like Jet-Ski

I must confess… I didn’t know that a snowmobile would do that.

A 31-year-old Grafton man is angry about receiving $1,000 in fines for using his snowmobile like a Jet-Ski, speeding across the flooded Milwaukee River.
By the time an officer responded to a report on June 10, the man had parked his snowmobile.

A police incident report says Jay A. Seaver acknowledged speeding, saying he had to go about 75 mph to get across the river without sinking.

An officer gave him two citations—one for suspicion of operating a snowmobile in a prohibited area and one for taking part in a water-sport event without a permit. Each offense carries a $500 fine.

Seaver says he would have been OK with a slap on the wrist, but he thinks the fines are ridiculous. He says he plans to fight the tickets in court.

I agree with him here.  That’s a stiff penalty for doing something that didn’t hurt anybody or any property.  And calling what he did a “water-sport event” is just silly. 

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1053 hrs
Law

  1. Fine with me. He made it across by sheer luck but would have expected the fire department to save his dumb keester if he didn’t. The morons who took their children down the river and got swamped in Newburg deserved the same thing.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2008 at 1113 hrs


  2. I see both sides.  wbman is correct to note that some (conservatives and liberals alike) probably would’ve been worked up if some local unit of government had to fork out money in labor and service costs to go rescue his snowmobile and his drowning ass from the river.

    Also, we can presume that there’s a map somewhere that would indicate whether the area in which the individual was allegedly snowmobiling was indeed a no snowmobiling zone.  I doubt there’s a seasonal suspension for that law.

    The ticket for the water-sport event is silly, unless he accepted some kind of money (perhaps through a bet?) for his actions.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 21, 2008 at 1222 hrs


  3. What bothers me is two tickets for the same incident -seems like it’s a “hedge” - if one ticket gets dismissed because it is wrong, perhaps the other one will stick.  If neither gets dismissed, it’s a “double-dip”.  Then again, there is some negotiating power on the side of the law - plead guilty to one and dismiss the other.

    The potential to use community resources at public expense is a valid point - in cases like this, I would like to see any fines go directly to the fire department to purchase necessary equipment.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2008 at 1253 hrs


  4. I don’t agree with the argument that he should be fined because he engaged in some behavior that may require the use of societal resources. 

    He has presumably paid his taxes to have access to those resources.  Do we want to start examining personal choices?  Check out every fire that your local department responds to.  Most would be due to poor choices.  Check out the ambulance calls.  Should we spend societal dollars because somebody ate fried food their whole life and now had a heart attack?

    Guys like him are why we all pay taxes.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2008 at 1916 hrs


  5. Y’all are missing the point.

    Snow mobile.  Open water.  75 MPH.  This is just .. awesome.

    I wonder if he worse his crash helmet?

    Posted by Brian Dunbar on June 21, 2008 at 1919 hrs


  6. Check out every fire that your local department responds to

    Actually the township where I grew up used to (maybe they still do) charge for fire department responses for grass or brush fires that were started without a burning permit. 

    EMS calls are often billed to Medicare and insurance.

    Cities impose penalties for multiple false alarms that are autodialed.

    Here’s an article from the MJS about fire departments charging for responses:

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=674522

    .......................................

    The state gave towns the authority in 1985 to charge such a fee, said Rick Stadelman, executive director of the Wisconsin Towns Association. Mainly, though, it has been towns in rural or more remote areas of the state that charge the fee, he said.

    ........................................

    The Town of Durand, in Pepin County in northwestern Wisconsin, has been charging a fire call fee for at least 10 years, said Fire Chief Larry Plumer. “It’s quite common in towns up around here,” he added. The fee is $275 for the first hour trucks are on the scene and $50 an hour thereafter. There’s also a charge of $12 per firefighter per hour, he said

    ..............................................

    The Town of Port Washington in Ozaukee County has had a fire call cost recovery ordinance on the books since 2001. The charge can range from $200 to $1,500, but in general it runs between $300 and $400, said town Clerk Susan Westerbeke.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2008 at 1941 hrs


  7. It’s not just the financial issue. The fire departments have to commit personnel (often volunteers who leave work to handle calls) and equipment, during which they’re unavailable to handle less avoidable emergencies.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 21, 2008 at 2028 hrs


  8. So much for living in a free country…we just keep sliding down the slippery slope.  Eventually, Americans will not be allowed to do any activites that could be considered dangerous and might invoke a rescue call.

    I’m an avid snowmobiler.  If he would have sunk his sled, then I’m sure he would have been fined just like the guys that go through the ice in the winter.  The DNR would fine him per day and he would have to pay someone to retrieve his snowmobile in order to stop the fines.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 23, 2008 at 1542 hrs


Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.