What is Rubio thinking?  Does he think we are idiots? If I want in I'm going in.  What right do you have to tell me otherwise.  Bottom line, you don't.

Well, maybe. And if you swim in the Kern River, regardless of the warnings and numerous deaths, and if you let your kids do the same, he'd be right. It is stupid to do something dangerous, just to prove your have the right to do so. Unfortunately, when you choose to drive past all the signs, and then get in that river, you also put at risk those who would try to rescue your ass or find your body when you drown. It is not just your choice. When you choose to put others at risk and cost taxpayers money, it is pure selfishness. What are you, thirteen or fourteen? Your statements surely suggest a petulant child who only wants his own way, the cost and inconvenience of everyone else be damned.

ghostriter, the thing is that some people would support a "no rescue" zone.  Of course, the problem is that you don't know if the person you're saving went into the river intentionally or not until you pull them out.

Bonnyloon, part of your name is right anyway.  Ghost is right about doing something dangerous just to prove you have the right to do it.  Years ago a couple of "white" guys were driving down Cottonwood about 3 am....they had a "right" to be there because, after all, it's a public street.  The driver was shot and killed at a stop sign for no other reason than that he was in "their" neighborhood.   You have a right to be in a lot of dangerous places but is it the smart thing to do? 

The people dying in the Kern aren't from here.   When was the last time you heard of a local dying in the river?  The cost is astronomical and these people don't even pay taxes here.   But you go ahead and exercise your "right" to drown in the river.  Maybe you can be the first local in many years to run up the bill with Search And Rescue and get YOUR name in the paper.

 Having said all that.  A law isn't going to stop people from getting in the river....if the big warning signs done't work and they don't read them, what good will the law do?

After writing that, you should change your user name. It is an insult to loons.

The rescuers are volunteers.  So tax money not exactly an issue.

And, my statement about entering the river if I want to, is made to make a point.  If someone is willing to drive past the signs and then get in the river, that's their business.  Who are we to say, hey don't do that until you put a life vest on your kid.  This just doesn't make any sense.  They had their warning about 15 times as they drove to the river.  That's where the taxmoney went, to the signs.  And I'm okay with that.  But requiring kids to wear lifejackets is going to raise a whole new bunch of problems (like enforcement) that will find a way to drain more tax dollars.

Keep the signs, toss out the life jacket requirement idea.

I heard the same argument about child safety seats. An adult can be an idiot. A child does not have the capacity to choose prudence and safety or ignore it. The child is ultimately a ward of the state. This is why you cannot sell them to a sweatshop, keep them out of school, molest them, etc. Perhaps life vests are an extra burden. So is recovering drowned kids because adults don't use common sense.

Show me the data Catpaw on the kids drowning.  It hasn't happened.  So this is totally unnecessary.  And, if you want to talk about wasting tax dollars, the board meeting where they actually discussed this should be seen as a waste of time.  Since when has recovering drowned kids in the river been a burden?  The adults sure, but I'm talking about the kids.

I am almost willing to bet that if a lifejacket law were past for kids, we would see more child drownings in the river.  Have you seen the river?  To say that a life jacket on a kid is going to keep him from drowning is an argument from an idiot.  Maybe you should go check the river out.

There is no point in requiring jackets for the kids, or adults.  We have signs with warnings.  If these aren't working then I'd like to know what makes you think a mandated life jacket law will do any better.