And yes I know how much liability insurance costs. You should make the cost part of your cost of doing business and incorporate it into the fees you charge.
And yes I know how much liability insurance costs. You should make the cost part of your cost of doing business and incorporate it into the fees you charge.
At the risk of being pedantic, Fatali won't have "paid his debt to society" until his probation is over, his community service has been served and his fines have been paid. IMO, suggesting that people should let him off the hook now, the day after his sentencing, is a bit premature...
Hmm. Now how does that go, "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." I for one think Fatali had paid for his sins by simply coming forward and cleanup any damage. I believe the court sentence is ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is that there are signs at the entrance to Arches which read "NO CAMPFIRES." I don't think there are any signs off the coast of Alaska reading "NO OIL SPILLS." Accidents happen... oftentimes when laws are broken. The damage to the area around Delicate Arch obviously just made matters worse for him, but Mr. Fatali should never have lit the fires in the first place. I'm sure the judge in the case took into consideration how much money Mr. Fatali has brought in through photographing in the parks and on other federal lands and figured he should know better. Now we all do. I'm going to be Baby Bear, here, and say the sentence was juuuuuuust right. While we're on the subject of illegal photography (a concept which I happen to dislike): I think it is in the latest issue of Arizona Highways that there is an essay on Lake Powell. The article contains, oddly enough, photographs...by five different guys. One of the photos is of Rainbow Bridge, which as I recall is actually on Najavo land and is roped off to prevent tourist-types from trespassing. The photo, I believe, is from the "back" side (i.e. not the side from the water approach). Who wants to wager that this photo was taken illegally?
Time has not been served at this point so his dept has not been paid. He purposefully broke the law for personal gain, and no I don't think the fine was harsh enough. We are talking about icons of our American heritage that he put into jeopordy, and more than once. I would hope we would hold these places closer to our hearts and soles than a lame $11k. I hope I am wrong that he did this for personal gain and just truely got caught up in an inspirational moment, then again you would think some rational thought would come into play during the time lapse of the event..... So many sides, opinions and views....
Let's see....
Michael Fatali did a little creative photographing. Enron did a little creative bookkeeping. Whose creativity did the greater damage? Who will accept responsibility, be held accountable and who will not?
Good Lord! What does ENRON have to do with the price of tea in China??!! If there is someone out there who has done worse things, then he must be innocent? Personally, I think what he did was far worse than just setting a fire - far worse than the same act if done by a tourist. He has taken groups into the park for years, derived income from workshops there - he is a PROFESSIONAL, and as such knows the rules, knows what damage could be done - and knows better! Yet he intentionally violated the public trust. It was an incredubly arrogant and selfish act - no amount of sugar- coated "right of expression" or artistic BS can mask that fact. What damage was, or was not, done is not important. He did not just "break the rules", he thumbed his nose.... Anything short of a lifetime ban means he got off easy. But not as easy as the rest of the party in the workshop - they all should share the penalties. I find it very hard to believe that no one else in the party knew this was wrong!
Well said, Ellis and Matt O.
Well, if I had been part of that scholarly (?) group, I MIGHT have thought he had a permit to do it. I might have.
As for the zillion $ liability, we can thank our tort claim lawyer friends. The US had a lot of money and there is no reason why they shouldn't have some of it. So insurance to beat that off the Treasury.
<I>"As for the zillion $ liability, we can thank our tort claim lawyer friends."
Geez , silly me! I thought it was because of the people who damage OUR park resources by using it as their personal playground and refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks