I'm all for rescuing them because I feel like it's the right thing to do. However, I'd love to see them take a page from what some of the SOs Up North do during ice fishing season, and say that you will be billed for the full cost of rescue if a lifeguard, firefighter, or LEO goes in after you on a double red day, and that the minimum bill you will receive for services is high enough to count, say starting at $2500 or something like that.
I like the idea of billing them, but there is more at stake here than money for services rendered. I was a lifeguard in my previous life for about a decade, and I worked at pools, waterparks, a large lake in Georgia, and a small lake in central Florida.
When someone is drowning, it is automatically a dangerous situation, but most of the time it's less dangerous for the rescuer than it is for the rescue-ee. I was in a couple of situations where there were exceptions to that--sudden electrical storms where small boats (catamarans, paddleboats) were stranded on the lake and had to be pulled in (in central Florida, add that to Gator-inhabited water,) disentangling stranded swimmers from a rapids-type water slide while other swimmers are still coming down on you, intoxicated and belligerent swimmers, a chlorine leak at a pool, etc.
But I was never a beach lifeguard, and this ain't
Baywatch. A wave pool can be turned off (and
was turned off many times when swimmers got in trouble.) But an undertow or rip tide that can carry one swimmer away can carry a rescuer away, too. I do not think it's the right thing to send some kid who's making less than he would at Starbucks to risk his life. Greenroomsurfer is good about rescuing folks, too, and I'm going to be mighty upset when he tears his back up, gets whacked in the head by a drunk and drowns, gets bitten by a shark, etc. for his trouble. It's like telling someone to evacuate for a flood or hurricane--if you choose to stay, you can't expect someone to risk life and limb trying to save you.
