Rob - I very much did not mean to attack the Gardiner FD. I'm *very* sorry if it came across as doing so. Seth got it right. And I understand why/how you saw it the way you did.

I guess I was trying to express some generalized shock at how much this accident will cost in the end; but not that it should cost any cent less, and not that anyone's making out at all, let alone like a fat cat, just - wow, what a huge, potentially life-changing number. And maybe as a warning that one shouldn't climb without health insurance (!) ....

I am sure that both flights, including the one from Pkee to Westchester, were Gardiner-based; they told me so themselves.

I am surely intending to donate some considerable cash, to the rescue apparatus as a whole; I have a long list of thanks to express. Your suggestion of donating directly to the Gardiner FD is appreciated. I could not be more grateful that the rescue structure - dozens of people to whom I probably owe my ability to walk - was there when I needed it, and just writing that started tears down my cynical old face, dammit.

Thanks Julie. Figured that was about how you felt.

I've been busy and so unable to respond to Ian and Rick but I'll get to it. For the moment I just want to back up what Rob said about there being no helicopter rescue service based in Gardiner. There just aren't any. If Rob and I are wrong, please post company name, address, phone, web site, etc..

It would be cool if there was. There could be something new and not on anyone's radar yet, even Rob's, but that's not likely.

Post up contact info for said Gardiner based helicopter rescue service please.

And maybe as a warning that one shouldn't climb without health insurance

Yeah, I know this is thread deviation, yet the above is some of the soundest advice ever given on this website.

Julie, thanks for the clarification. Again, I'm sorry I reacted harshly. I was in a mood apparently. But I would encourage you to look into that helicopter thing. Most likely it was Mobile Life or Stat Flight. neither of which are based in Gardiner.

No worries, Rob, the evidence says I'm not firing on all guns yet so I'm sure I wrote or expressed things badly there somehow. It is teh interwebs after all.

Mobile Life brought me the mile between the steel bridge and the field across from the Deli. The bill I have for both flights is from Rocky Mtn Holdings LLC, based in Cincinnati OH with a return address in Fontana, CA. It says Air Medical transport services were provided by Air Methods Corp..

I remember chatting with the guy who loaded me onto to the heli, and I remember clearly that he said he was based out of Gardiner. I also remember a nurse in P'kee saying they were waiting for the heli to get there from Gardiner (to take me to Westchester). That's all's I know, and that's why I have this impression that Gardiner has a heli service.

Aside from the money flow and whether it hits Gardiner or not, my original point was that when any Gardiner resident calls 911, the response they get is better than many other random small towns in, say, Kansas ... because of a history of emergency calls from the MP. Dark but true.

Julie, There is a Twin Star helicopter based at The Sky Ranch in Gardiner. I would suggest they also have refueling capabilities there as well and maybe used by other air services?

Ian,

what I'm saying is the economic activity generated by the MP and their members isn't any more important than economic activity generated by non members. You spend money and put people to work. Great. So does everyone else who participates in the local economy. It doesn't justify the organization you are a member of, the MP, being tax exempt.

Property taxes are higher for all property tax payers because the MP is tax exempt. Every time they acquire another piece of land the tax base is eroded further and everyone pays a little more.

If you're a MP member and you pay local property taxes it's pretty much a wash. But people who are not MP members shouldn't be subsidizing people who are.

Rick,

I paraphrased you and I quoted you to support my paraphrasing. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your remarks.

About you supporting oil company subsidies I was obviously pulling your leg. But the dynamic is largely the same. Wealthy, on a different order of magnitude of course, well connected people getting what they want at the expense of others.

Kent,
I guess you could call it a paraphrase. If the point you make in your "paraphrase" was at all related to the point I was making in my post. Which I thought was pretty clear.

As long as tax law allows it, non-profits will take the tax exemptions. In no way does that statement agree or disagree with the practice as your "paraphrase" alludes.

I also missed the humor in your comment about the oil company subsidies. It appeared to me as if you were attempting to broaden the discussion thread with a little drift.

Now, as far as rephrasing my post to fit your paraphrase? Now, that's funny.