• The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
    Price is $300 $250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
    Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.

  • Today marks the 24th anniversary of 9/11. I pray that this nation does not forget the loss of lives from this horrible event. Yesterday conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was murdered, and I worry about what is to come. Please love one another and your family in these trying times - Spark

Should the Rescued Individual Pay for SARS?

Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
2,692
I read this (http://ngadventure.typepad.com/blog/2009/11/deep-survival-with-laurence-gonzalesearch-rescue-should-victims-pay.html#more) article today and I think it is spot on with it's philosophy. Here, on this forum we are of the like mindset that we ought to be prepared and only bite off as much as we are able to chew. All things considered, urban life is fairly safe, and when urbanites venture out into the wild, they are often under prepared. I don't think that the status quo is likely to change even with some kind of P.S.A. where some celebrity preaches wilderness preparedness. I'm sure charging for the service would draw attention, but not achieve the desired goal. What do You think?
 
Fines are levied to prevent littering, speeding, and running red lights. Fines would probably reduce, but not eliminate, the frequency of folks venturing into the woods unprepared.
 
Fines are levied to prevent littering, speeding, and running red lights. Fines would probably reduce, but not eliminate, the frequency of folks venturing into the woods unprepared.
Check out the article I linked. The basic premise is that, if people are fined for S.A.R. they will take steps to avoid being found if they are still optimistic about their outcome, and be less likely to call early when it is important. This creates more issues for S.A.R.S. than they would like, searching for people who are potentially avoiding them or they were only alerted WAY after they should have been. Seriously, read it.
 
Check out the article I linked. The basic premise is that, if people are fined for S.A.R. they will take steps to avoid being found if they are still optimistic about their outcome, and be less likely to call early when it is important. This creates more issues for S.A.R.S. than they would like, searching for people who are potentially avoiding them or they were only alerted WAY after they should have been.

and this is the NUMBER ONE issue that keeps coming up between ALL parties involved (government, SAR, Police, hikers, etc etc)
 
Have posted "No search and rescue zones". Travel at your own risk. Problem solved.
 
I'll quote the article here for all you couch potatoes :
Deep Survival with Laurence Gonzales
$earch + Rescue: Should Victims Pay?

Most backcountry searches don’t cost the victim a dime. Let’s keep it that way.

On April 25, 2009, Scott Mason set out to hike the Presidential Range in New Hampshire on a popular, 17-mile route that crosses several peaks, including Mount Washington. Mason had decided to do it in one day. With his training and experience (he’s an Eagle Scout), it wasn’t an unreasonable plan.

But then the 17-year-old turned his ankle. At first, Mason continued hiking his original route. Then he tried to find a shorter trail off the mountain but was stopped by a stream swollen with spring runoff. The weather was good, and he was fairly well equipped, so he wasn’t in any immediate danger. He had food and was able to make a fire.

A search was mounted for Mason when he didn’t return as soon as planned. Things got complicated fast, and before long the operation involved the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Mountain Rescue Service, Androscoggin Valley Search and Rescue, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and a Maine Forest Service helicopter.

The Fish and Game Department found Mason four days later, and he was all right. Mason’s parents sent $1,000 to the department to show their gratitude. Fish and Game responded by calling Mason “negligent” and sending him a bill for $25,238 to cover the cost of his rescue.

I’ve been working with search and rescue (SAR) people for a decade or so and have never met one who thought it was a good idea to charge for rescue. Most SAR workers like helping people. They like to feel good about what they do. And they hate it when a rescue turns into a body recovery. But there’s also a selfish reason to their logic: Charging makes their job more dangerous.

As Steve Rollins of Portland Mountain Rescue explains, “Charging for rescues creates the unintended consequence of discouraging people from calling for a rescue, increasing risks and likely increasing the complexity and costs of rescues.”

Charley Shimanski, president of the Mountain Rescue Association, echoed Rollins when he told me, “I once led a rescue of a climber at 14,000 feet in a raging blizzard at 1 a.m. Conditions were horrific. The man’s wife knew he was overdue six hours earlier—when the weather was great—but did not call for help because she thought we charge a fee.”

A position paper released around the same time as Mason’s ordeal by North Shore Rescue in Vancouver, British Columbia, states, “It is essential that the team be called out as quickly as possible . . . There have been instances in the past where the subject has deliberately tried to avoid the searchers . . . thinking, If I get to the car park before they find me, then I won’t be charged. This makes our job substantially more difficult.”

The same month, the National Association for Search & Rescue issued its own statement against charging for rescue. It said that delays in calling for help, “can, at the minimum, cause further danger to the person in peril and, at the maximum, place their life in jeopardy. Delays can place SAR personnel in extreme danger and unnecessarily compound and extend the length of the SAR mission.”

Richard L. P. Solosky, former president of the Alpine Rescue Team and regional chair of the Mountain Rescue Association, pointed out to me that the entire National Park System spent a total of $4.52 million on SAR operations in 2006, while it had 272 million visitors. Which means the total cost of SAR was less than two cents per visitor. Although there are no comprehensive statistics for New Hampshire, from 2007 to 2008 Colorado sheriffs requested reimbursement for just 60 SAR incidents and were paid $60,310. That’s an average of $1,005 an incident. The fact is that most mountain rescue operations are performed by volunteers—other mountaineers—and the cost is relatively low.

The one thing that can send costs skyrocketing is the use of helicopters. But even this is largely subsidized. The Air Force and National Guard are often the ones that provide them, and they would rather be flying real rescue missions for their training than fake ones. With or without an actual rescue mission, the helicopters will fly and the taxpayer will foot the bill.

The reason New Hampshire charged Mason, according to the Fish and Game Department, is as follows: “In the department’s opinion,” a spokesman said, “he was negligent in totality. He had an aggressive hiking itinerary.”

Mason told one of the supervisors at the Pinkham Notch Lodge, where he slept the night before he set off, about his plans. No one said he was nuts. In 2008, literally hundreds of people hiked a similar route, the 18-mile Presidential Traverse, in a day. So what exactly is an aggressive itinerary?

I hiked in the Presidential Range myself one nice spring day in weather that must have been similar to what Mason experienced. The trail was wet and snowy as I slogged up the steep, slippery slush in a dense forest of birch and pine richly carpeted with blowdown and ice storm damage. I was acutely aware of how easy it would be to slip and hurt myself. Was I being aggressive and negligent? I don’t think so. I was never out of sight of at least a dozen people. I saw octogenarians in long johns and six-year-olds in high-tech ski jackets. There were snowshoes and flip-flops and serious-looking hikers with ice climbing gear. Everyone was grinning, joking, and saying hi to strangers in a giddy spring rite of passage on Mount Washington. If somebody had dropped an ice ax on my foot and I’d had to be carried down the mountain, I wonder what it would have cost. Would five different departments have been called in for a helicopter rescue then too?

It is true that some people just seem determined to get themselves killed. It’s very frustrating for search and rescue workers to encounter such stupidity in the wilderness, but if bureaucrats get to decide how much risk I can take in New Hampshire, I guess I’ll spend my money somewhere else. There is an easy way to put an end to the boneheaded idea that SAR requires payment by the person who’s rescued: Stop taking trips to places that charge for rescue. Simple: No visitors. No rescues. No charge.
 
The basic premise is that, if people are fined for S.A.R. they will take steps to avoid being found if they are still optimistic about their outcome, and be less likely to call early when it is important.

I agree with the premise. If I knew for certain that I would be charged for a rescue I'd be probably be close to death before asking for help.
 
I agree with the premise. If I knew for certain that I would be charged for a rescue I'd be probably be close to death before asking for help.
Me too! At 25k per rescue. That creates problems for S.A.R.S. and makes their job harder though.
 
If you like to ride ATVs, snowboard, etc, you risk breaking your neck and incurring thousands of dollars in medical bills. If you like to go hiking in the woods, you risk getting lost and having to pay someone to come find you. Any responsible, educated hiker knows that.
Then again, you don't have to pay for an ambulance if someone calls it for you and you send them away. I think I might be a little upset if I thought I had things under control and someone tried to haul me out of the woods via chopper. :D
 
Have posted "No search and rescue zones". Travel at your own risk. Problem solved.

I like this idea, however if your watching a ball game and forget about the beans on the stove and start a fire should you be fined by the fire dept?
 
As much as it would be nice for it to be, this isn't a clear cut issue.
I like this idea, however if your watching a ball game and forget about the beans on the stove and start a fire should you be fined by the fire dept?
Good point.
Have posted "No search and rescue zones". Travel at your own risk. Problem solved.
I'm certain that if we started doing that, we as a society would have larger problems. To illustrate the complexity, would you feel the same way if your 12 year old son, defied the law, and your orders, and went off with a pal on his own for a day hike and got lost. Assuming you couldn't find him, and someone else did, you'd be stuck with a bill; or rather you wouldn't. He would be "at his own risk" right?
 
The idea of huge fines seems ludicrous to me. If the estimated cost per visitor was less than $0.02 then why not add a 3 cent "rescue insurance" fee to park admissions and use the surplus revenue to better equip and train SARS teams. Using the numbers provided in this article a 3 cent fee would generate $8,160,000 annually, or roughly a 3.5 million dollar surplus which could be used to improve the existing system or expand the number of teams on standby. I would gladly pay my $0.03 to know someone is ready to help if I get into trouble, hell the change lying in the ash tray of my truck would cover me for a few decades.
 
I'm all for people being held responsible for their own stupidity, but I can easily imagine a situation where they go looking for people that aren't in trouble and don't need finding. There are also plenty of people who legitimately get in trouble with no fault of their own (i.e., you have a heart attack, or you get shot by a hunter).
 
I'm all for people being held responsible for their own stupidity
I think part of the above article is to address the fine line there. Where is it drawn? This kid twisted his ankle and they told him:
“he was negligent in totality. He had an aggressive hiking itinerary.”
Now, if it were more complex and a brief hearing determined the negligence quotient; and if they determined you were a real waste of flesh, then you would do some kind of gritty community service like washing public restroom toilets until they could be eaten out of. But then, hearings cost money and again, the line isn't something you can make tangible, the infinite number of possibilities of instances against the disposition of individuals that would weigh the claims.
 
it's just one more way of limiting travel by government IMHO. one more freedom lost.

if you accept assistance, then you should be subject to the fine, but if you say "No Thank You" it should be like a DNR order IMHO.


you shouldn't have to pay for a bunch of adrenaline addicts to get high.

that's the dirty little secret of most SAR people i know.


let me die in peace.

vec
 
Back
Top