Another case of billing for a rescue...

[LMT66]

I expect nothing from government but grief and B.S. and I'm seldom disappointed.

Agreed.
It really irks me that they are trying to collect for both rescues mentioned recently in the forum. Trying to wring water from rocks while a head of state and milf flies on big blue to NY for a date.
I'll shup too...getting political but it's hard to avoid with this story.

 

[Don Rearic]

I think in order to totally enforce the rules about such a thing one would have to instantly move or lock these types of threads. It is impossible for the discussion to go in any other way unless people are just going to sit and bleat that - "They got what they dee-dee-deeserved, gov-gov-ernment ga-ga-ga-good." But, some people are like that until a law or regulation hits them personally. Then it's not so "good" that people be punished for just being people.

I mean, I am in agreement that socialism is a scourge and we have all been sickened by the handouts, but I mean, really, to make people pay for this stuff while everyone else is looting the Treasury at every turn is absurd. We're already paying for these services, hitting people again for this is just like when they double-triple-quadruple taxes on money that has already been taxed, etc. I am all for personal responsibility but how in the hell can you have a society and create an environment of "personal responsibility" in the outdoors when some people still think knives and guns kill people of their own accord and carrying minimal "survival gear" makes one a neo-nazi or some other bizarre trash? It seems that government has created the nanny-state where people are not taught to take care of themselves and then they get punished for it and then when someone attempts to take care of themselves by having two medications on their person in case of contact with a bee, they STILL have to pay AGAIN. It's rubbish.

 

[Skimo]

is it really two shots now, not just one.... thanks for the update.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I mean, I am in agreement that socialism is a scourge and we have all been sickened by the handouts, but I mean, really, to make people pay for this stuff while everyone else is looting the Treasury at every turn is absurd. We're already paying for these services, hitting people again for this is just like when they double-triple-quadruple taxes on money that has already been taxed, etc.

This is not a political discussion. Don't worry about it. Political is when it gets partisan and we start hammering specific candidates or parties. Bureaucracy is a legitimate target and so is allocation of public resources.

I quoted part of what Don wrote because it parallels another entitlement. Think about how much money goes to public TV, radio, symphony orchestras, public parks and swimming pools. All of these are entertainment for the urban population just as wilderness activities are entertainment for people who want some relief from the city.

One difference is that wilderness people supply more of their own gear. I don't have to provide a hall for the symphony orchestra. I just need the wilderness. Yes, the government "provides" that, but a lot of what they provide is just access for people who don't really belong there. It's a temptation for people who think a cleared trail means it's safe to go for a stroll.

If my taxes go for public TV which I don't watch or public radio which I can't stand, then it can go for reasonable assistance on the trails, too. Fee for service, pay for your ambulance ride? Why? I pay insurance already: it's called taxes. It's not even big bucks. $25000 or even $2000 is a big hit for a teenage kid but NOTHING for a local government or agency.

It's all allocation. The money, and more, is there. The bureaucrat walks a fine line. If he has a surplus at the end of the year, he can crow how well he's shepherded the public's money. If he has too much of a surplus, his next year's allocation is cut. (I did budgets for the New York Post Office. )

If the government sets some kind of fee for rescue, it should be along the lines of what a doctor might charge for attendance, for the injury involved. All the equipment, and the teams of SAR and firefighters and police, they are part of the infrastructure. I don't get a separate tax bill every time the Marines take out a pocket of Somali pirates.

 

[Bushman5]

Personally i am all for billing of rescues. Now before everyone grabs the tar and feathers and then burns me alive, please read WHY:

Here in BC we have a never ending parade of IDIOTS that go into the ski hills unprepared. They choose to VIOLATE the LAW by going past the backcountry NO ENTRY signs (die to extreme terrain and avalanches). They they get lost or injured or stuck, call 911 on their cell phone and expect a heli pickup and a hot drink. They have ZERO kit with them, not even a heat sheet, and and has been shown over the years ZERO SURVIVAL SKILLS.

so SAR shows up, which involves all the SAR volunteers (yes VOLUNTEERS - they do not get paid by taxpayers, only fuel reimbursement and SOME big equipment (heli etc) to have to leave work, or get woken up in the middle of the night and taken away form their families. Their lives get put in risk every time to go fetch these young idiots that flaunt the law. It costs MINIMUM $5000 CDN for a rescue callout, some rescues can go as high as $25,000CDN + when helis, quads, overnight command posts and portable shelters are involved.

Once rescued and back in the parking lot, the idiots hide their faces from the camera or tell the RCMP and SAR to F******** and shy away from any media on scene. Completely disrespectful of the people that risked their lives for them.

So yea, i say bill them (and in some cases bill the parents) for the rescue, BUT, only the idiots, and not the ones that go prepared and need rescue for medical or environmental reasons.

ok you can run the spears thru me now, as I'm sure this will be a hot topic.

 

[Mountainman38]

There are plenty of dumbasses who get themselves into situations that they shouldn't have. My biggest beef is the numerous occurrences every year of people who hike partially up Half Dome in Yosemite, CA, decide that they can't make it and then use their cell phones to summon help via helicopter... With how poor our country has become, I've always wondered why SAR had always been "free"....

Funny you mention Half Dome -- I got to witness exactly what you're talking about there.

I've hiked to the top of that phenomenal rock 6 times now, and it still is amazing. On one of my recent trips, I was heading up the switchback trail just below the cables, and came around a corner to see a family of 4 sitting in the trail. The parents were anxiously asking everyone who came past them (me included) to give them water and gatorade for their approximately 15 year old daughter. Seems they had brought very little with them, and used it up quite early in the hike. The daughter was not doing well, and apparently suffering from heat exhaustion. Not only was this family (parents in their late 40's or so, 15 y/o daughter and 12 y/o son) completely unprepared for the hike, they'd had the daughter pass out the day before from heat exhaustion, too! Unbelievable.

Now, for those of you who haven't been on this hike, it's 8.2 miles from the trailhead to the top, with another mile or so to the parking lot. This makes for a delightful 17 to 18 mile round trip, with an elevation gain of about 5,000 feet. Where these folks were was about 7 miles into the hike, after an elevation gain of about 4,000 feet. It was summer, so temperatures were in the 80's, and the hike is mostly exposed. I take five quarts of water with me, and drink most of it on the hike.

I don't enjoy carrying a heavy day pack, but I make sure to carry what I need. I had plenty of water and food, but didn't feel like provisioning a bunch of people who didn't bother to bring what they needed, should have known better, and expected someone else to pack things for them. Had circumstances been different, and this a genuine emergency, I would have helped in a heartbeat. However, this situation was just plain stupid.

Our group continued on, and soon reached the summit. As we were soaking in the amazing views, we started hearing chop-chop-chop and sure enough, here came the chopper up the valley below us. We watched it move on up to the saddle below where the unprepared family was, land, and shortly after take off again.

I didn't actually watch them load the girl, but it's a pretty safe bet that the family used the 911 taxi to save them from their lack of proper planning. :thumbdn::grumpy:

 

[PrimitiveMan]

We should maintain emergency personnel and resources that we can afford, and after that, people are at their own risk. Kind of like beaches and pools. They usually have a lifeguard during certain hours, after that, you are on your own.

This is no different than a seat belt law or anything else designed to "protect the public from themselves" It is designed for one simple outcome. REVENUE. They want the cash.

If SAR is basically volunteer, then the cost is ZERO. Yes, they need some safety and rescue equipment, but that is minimal. Radios, ropes and "biners" don't warrant $25,000 fines. Stop funding Helicopters. After the first couple of victims die, you can rest assured the ones that follow are idiots.

 

[mollyhatchet]

I remember a mountain rescue a few years ago where the chopper rolled over, one crew member was thrown out of the chopper and rolled over by the chopper. He was lucky, just mashed into the snow. I wonder how the ones needing to be rescued felt then. Is this kind of rescue fair to the rest of the taxpayers?

 

[Bushman5]

We should maintain emergency personnel and resources that we can afford, and after that, people are at their own risk. Kind of like beaches and pools. They usually have a lifeguard during certain hours, after that, you are on your own.

This is no different than a seat belt law or anything else designed to "protect the public from themselves" It is designed for one simple outcome. REVENUE. They want the cash.

If SAR is basically volunteer, then the cost is ZERO. Yes, they need some safety and rescue equipment, but that is minimal. Radios, ropes and "biners" don't warrant $25,000 fines. Stop funding Helicopters. After the first couple of victims die, you can rest assured the ones that follow are idiots.

unfortunately, here in BC the terrain is so brutal, thickly wooded/shrubbed and steep that often the only thing SAR can use for a rescue IS a whirlybird.....

 

[mcjhrobinson]

i lived in hawaii most my life(mostly on oahu). in hawaii people love to hike and enjoy our beaches. we also have a TON of tourists....

our city and county has a great SAR team since tourists are very naive in both the hills and ocean. almost monthly you hear of a group of young hikers going off trail getting lost and having to have a heli and SAR teams out to get them. and TONS of people get rescued by lifegaurds, my friend who is a lifegaurd has saved 10 peoples lives in the past 5 years, so i for the most part agree with what bushman has to say...why should i foot the bill for someone elses stupidity?

but then someone in a post posted something about "the song would be different if it was their family member" which i also agree with, i travel alot and like to go hiking and sometimes suffer from superman complex who knows one day i might actually need help (but i doubt it).

both sides make very valid points. But I would have to agree that individual people should not have to pay. we pay more than enough taxes in our lives to warrant a rescue. the gubment is already how deep in debt...whats another 2k?

maybe we can create jobs by having an emergency rescue billing case manager!

 

[kgd]

If our parks are made 'use at your own risk' and the liability becomes onerous, people will not use the parks. When people stop using the parks they view them as useless tracts of land that are valueless to society. Then the parks themselves are at jeopardy.

Likewise on the other extreme is when parks become overly restrictive for liability and habitat protection issues. There is nothing more I hate is when natural parks turn into safari land with everybody expecting to walk on a two foot boardwalk and not allowed to leave the trail. Rangers are their every 200 m making sure you don't step off that boardwalk. That really isn't what nature is about either.

I really do think there can be a good mid-point somewhere. I'd like to see some of those pork barrel dollars go to sincere education efforts. For example, incorporating outdoor education experiences as part of our mandated highschool curriculum and teaching basic ideas about safety and survival. That kind of approach is not going to save the idiots of the world, but nothing really will. On the other hand, when people start to learn actual skills and understand the risks they might bring the right gear and mindset to help them plan a successful trip.

I hate to see amazing services be tripped up by a few bad apples. In the end, the few abusers of the system do not detract from the larger number of lives saved and/or the visitors who can enjoy and appreciate our wild spaces and who only come because there is some understanding that society will help them should things go wrong.

I can't agree with Bushman's critique about unnecessary risks posed to SAR personnel. It is true, they risk their lives to save others. They are heros, even more so, because they have chosen an expertise and volunteer their time to aid others without direct compensation. They have also chosen their lot in life because of their personal philosophy of honour, integrity and perhaps a touch of thrill seeking/adventure spirit. If SAR's were routinely treated in the way that Bushman describes, I doubt they would find many volunteers. For every jerk out there, there must be a few good reasons that keep our hero's moving and motivated.

Lets keep our wild spaces healthy, safe and appreciated by the the tax payers who pay for them. Lets make sure they get their value for the taxes they pay and they can show their grandchildren the glory that is the wilds. I certainly don't mind paying taxes for services that I benefit from. In fact, I usually lobby to up the contributions to the services I feel are important to me, my family and others in my community. Parks and park services certainly fall into that category for me.

 

[Bushman5]

good post KGD, but you should really come to the West Coast and see just how bad the 911 Wilderness Taxi service is abused. You would understand why i wrote what i wrote.

as for education in the schools to educate people on basic wilderness skills , nature etc, you will NEVER see the public school system do that, EVER. Simply put the Gumberment does not want its future wage slaves to grow up with the knowledge of how to survive. It wants them to be good little tax paying wage slaves, a source of labor.

 

[Big Mike]

Ken raises some very valid points.

It is a bit of a double edge sword, and at this stage dealing with the rescue costs is hap-hazard at best.

Most of the SAR guys I know are volunteers, but there equipment is public funded.

Tax payer dollars for legitimate recues is one thing, the same can’t be said for fools acting foolishly.

The lack of free space is an issue for us all, but how we deal with this rescue issue is a slippery slope, one that could affect as all in the long run.

My advice is to fight for wilderness, and resist the governments desire to control how we use it.




Big Mike

”Scaring the tree huggers.”

Forest & Stream

 

[PrimitiveMan]

"If our parks are made 'use at your own risk' and the liability becomes onerous, people will not use the parks. When people stop using the parks they view them as useless tracts of land that are valueless to society. Then the parks themselves are at jeopardy. "

Parks were "Use at your own risk" for a lot of years and people hunted, backpacked, pickniced and fished in them quite well. Quite safely actually.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that the % of people vs. the population that died as a result of accidents in parks in 1950 was less than that of today. Were there less boulders then? No. There were people who did not have a helicopter to pull them out and they knew it.

Society CONTINUES to make people less responsible for their own actions.

YOU CANNOT PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THEMSELVES. It is unconstitutional to make laws that do it and it is counterproductive as a society.

I do not have a problem with "at your own risk" and neither do any of my friends or relatives.

Take responsibility for your own actions people. And if you play the game, you pay the price.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

It's not just that society continues to make people less responsible for their actions. The continued urbanization of our civilization makes people less familiar with the hazards of the natural world. Some of the urbanites who feel most familiar with that world get their "facts" from TV shows, which miss out on what can go wrong in their efforts to show the best of what's available.

 

[Fonly]

Yeah, by the way, it is negligence, don't you know? People who are allergic to bees shouldn't be able to go out and enjoy a state park or something without getting saddled with bullshit "rescue fees," etc.

Exactly, this is what we were talking about at our last meeting.



While it sounds good, and some area might even be doing this to get some money for the SAR group, its a shame that it happens to people like this. One thing that someone said was should we be sending the people letters, showing them the cost of the search, reckless or not. That to me is insane, and the fact that some places are charging is just ludicrous.


When you start formally charging people for searches, not only are you going to loose a huge demographic of supporters and funders, but people are going to stop using the SAR groups in the area.

This crap going on is just stupid, and with every thing thats going on with SAR groups getting sued, its a little scary being a part of one.:grumpy:

 

[Fonly]

Take responsibility for your own actions people. And if you play the game, you pay the price.

So, where do you draw the line. An older man is walking, falls and breaks his leg, he doesn't get charged?

This young girl, not taking her medication with her, if she had any, that may have been her fault, but is that not the point of a search and rescue?


If people, sorry some SAR groups go at getting money another way, there would be much less heart ache.

 

[Fonly]

I can't agree with Bushman's critique about unnecessary risks posed to SAR personnel. It is true, they risk their lives to save others. They are heros, even more so, because they have chosen an expertise and volunteer their time to aid others without direct compensation. They have also chosen their lot in life because of their personal philosophy of honour, integrity and perhaps a touch of thrill seeking/adventure spirit. If SAR's were routinely treated in the way that Bushman describes, I doubt they would find many volunteers. For every jerk out there, there must be a few good reasons that keep our hero's moving and motivated.

Thats the thing, you realize in a city of over 60k, there are less SAR members than there were 10 years ago?

We have 15 active members, most of them can't get out, so there are routinely 7-9 members, including me who are available to go out within 20 minutes.

For me to think that some day I could be charging a kids family, for our time, effort, equipment and man power when is is still in a river somewhere is INSANE! That would be THE most horrible thing I could ever do in my life. "sorry for the loss of your sons life man, heres the bill, that covers heli use and our time" Are you f'ing kidding me!?

 

[Bushman5]

hold on man, breathe!

Its NOT the men and women that volunteer to go out and look for people that are the ones presenting the bill.......its a decision by the RCMP,and the people that oversee the SAR............after the fact. There is an enormous amount of discretion involved when deciding who foots the bill.........it is EXTREMELY rare that a deceased's family would ever get a bill......it is mostly the idiots that are caught out of bounds and unprepared that see bills.....

your locale might be different, i can only share my experiences

 

[Fonly]

hold on man, breathe!

Its NOT the men and women that volunteer to go out and look for people that are the ones presenting the bill.......its a decision by the RCMP,and the people that oversee the SAR............after the fact. There is an enormous amount of discretion involved when deciding who foots the bill.........it is EXTREMELY rare that a deceased's family would ever get a bill......it is mostly the idiots that are caught out of bounds and unprepared that see bills.....

your locale might be different, i can only share my experiences

yeah, thats not how it works here, we were talking about doing that, but it got shot down my majority pretty quite.

The thing about our SAR group is that we are on our own, 911 gets the call, then the RCMP, then they call us. when we get there, we control the scene. RCMP is there only for public relation. Once in a while RCMP, or the FD will take part, but most of the time, they just do support work, they'll send a boat, or get some munchies for us.


But still with even the guys who are being idiots and get them self in a pickle and need us to come get them, thats the point of SAR. we get some funding, gas is paid to a percentage, we have insurance and things like that. But we also do alot of work to get money for the group.

This whole charging people is looking more like a trend, I know I will be extremely disappointed if becomes a national thing.