With all do respect, don't we pay enough fees to the fat cats that make bad decisions. If you start collecting fees like that people get greedy and soon you will see SAR members with big fat pension and 6 figure salary. How are you going to define if one person is competent or not? If they don't carry a swiss army knife with 100000000 gadgets that must mean they are not competent. If you take bushman like mears or les, give them a blanket and a knife they would be more competent than most with high tech gear.
Perhaps I'm under the wrong impression, or things are run very differently from region to region, but SAR has always seemed to be more of a community effort of volunteers than "greedy government fat cats". It's not impossible, but I would be surprised if the nature of the workers changed so drastically from being benevolent to exploitative.
Of course proving someone was negligent isn't always going to be clear cut, especially with lawyers who will argue "within a reasonable doubt" that water isnt wet. Having people by default pay for services rendered and letting the first responders exercise their discretion in deciding whether the individual was negligent, I think would work best. They're in a better position to honestly asses the situation than any executive or lawyer.
I can imagine that with the burden of having to prove negligence on the SAR's side it could create a expensive dragged out appeal process that could possibly cost more than it ever recovers (and then what? Lawsuits against the SAR program to recover legal expenses?).
In the gray cases I see no problem with giving people the benefit of the doubt, but just because such there are less clear cut cases doesnt mean the black & white cases cant be dealt with accordingly.
I might not have been entirely clear, and with regards to Don's statements about people loosing their homes I entirely agree. Why save someones life just do ruin in the next day? SAR can be quick and painless or it can drag out and end up costing a bloody fortune, that's sometimes the luck of the draw. Perhaps a fixed charge would work best, then no one could complain that the rescue was inefficient and too expensive.
I feel the ultimate goal should be to create incentive to avoid these situations and recovering expenses is just a byproduct of the fact that some people are only motivated by money.
This talk of license and permits to go into the woods is just ludicrous. No one is saying you have to follow certain regulations to use the outdoors, if anything proper precautions are just an individuals 2 fold insurance policy, first it reduces the chance of needing rescue and secondly it indemnifies you against being liable for your rescue. If someone insists on going out without such a safety net thats their choice, but if that choice becomes someone else's problem should there be no consequence?
But honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the program and especially NH's unique problems to do anything more than speculate. All I really know is there's a lack of personal responsibility in this world and all the consequence free bail outs just enable that problem.
