Rescues - East vs. West

There's a difference in how backcountry rescues are perceived by the general public between the East Coast and the West Coast, and the differences are even greater if there are helicopters involved.

For a change of pace from the vitriol and angst often seen in Eastern news sources, here's an account of a young man who fell on Whitney, and received injuries severe enough to require a helicopter assist. And read the comments posted below the news item.

Notice there's no condemnation of the young man, nor the use of a SPOT by a hiker who assisted.

It's a telling difference however if you are basing comments on the East Coast from readers of the Union Leader I don't think that's a fair representation. The Union Leader is known for being Republican and against government [big brother] intervention

RollingRock said:

It's a telling difference however if you are basing comments on the East Coast from readers of the Union Leader I don't think that's a fair representation. The Union Leader is known for being Republican and against government [big brother] intervention

Click to expand...

Interesting point, RR. The UL is not the sum total of "Eastern news sources," and it tends to carry S&R stories as often as it can, perhaps because they're red meat to the base audience ("base" in the sense of "core"). Right up here with murder and mayhem. The Concord Monitor carries far fewer S&R stories. But maybe Kevin has seen the same vitriol in Fosters, Seacoast newspapers, the Globe, etc.

RollingRock said:

It's a telling difference however if you are basing comments on the East Coast from readers of the Union Leader I don't think that's a fair representation. The Union Leader is known for being Republican and against government [big brother] intervention

Click to expand...

I agree. The UL supports low taxes hence reduced services.

But note it was a FS (Federal) helicopter involved on Whitney. Much of the griping in NH is (paraphrased that it's basically NH hunters who have to pay to rescue idiots from out of state who try to ban hunting. The second most expensive S&R after the Eagle Scout was for an elderly hunter who was found dead months later, and nobody seemed to object to that expense.

I will try to be brief

The differences between the rescues on the coasts come down to 1 different factor, “who pays for it”. The disparity here is New Hampshire has stood long and proud on their lack of a sales tax or state income tax. When a New Hampshire funded department (NH F&G) starts going into the red, the citizens opposed to said taxes start getting upset. The chain reaction brings us to our current situation “who is going to pay for it” !

RoySwkr said:

... it's basically NH hunters who have to pay to rescue idiots from out of state who try to ban hunting ...

Click to expand...

Sadly, there is some truth to that. Many states fund Fish and Game to some significant extent through hunting and fishing licenses; search and rescue in the backcountry is often part of their mission and the source of funds ... yep, the licenses.

In reality, if not editorially, there is not the divide between the sports as some would like to dramatize but make no mistake about it, there is a legitimate gripe here that we should respect.

What makes everyone even more sore is when states start to pull these funds out of Fish and Game for the general coffers, to the point where F&G is underfunded for its many missions ... conservation being part of it ... while licenses get to pay for things that have nothing to do with hunting, fishing or rescues.

Such is the case in Maine I understand.

Hmm... I've seen plenty of condemnation of climbers on Hood or Rainier.
Here's the latest:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/97679934.html

Don't forget that out West there is a lot more Federal Land in Parks and National Forests, etc... it ends up being a Fed issue more often than State.

I might add that hunters and Fisherman were often the search subjects in the past (Check with NASAR). That has changed in some places where the hunter safety courses have gotten more serious in their map and compass and survival training. Also, hunters and fisherman who love their ATV's, fish-finders and other gadgets tended to buy GPS's sooner than backpackers and now tend to be the ones with spot devices.

I work on a SAR team where the guys who have been on the team for 20 years remember searching for hunters often when they started... now it is more often kids and Alzheimer's patients.

Certainly the debate over SAR is going to change as the user base, technology and political climate change... it will never be over.

RoySwkr said:

The second most expensive S&R after the Eagle Scout was for an elderly hunter who was found dead months later, and nobody seemed to object to that expense.

Click to expand...

Well of course nobody objected...he was out doing something "normal" (i.e., shooting wildlife with guns). The Eagle Scout was doing something "crazy" (i.e., climbing Mt. Washington in winter).

We shouldn't have to pay to rescue them crazy people, jus' normal folks, like us!

[/snark]

If the gripe against NHF&G rescuing us crazy hikers is that it's essentially paid for by hunters, in the form of license fees, what would prevent NH from requiring hikers to be licenced (with the requisite fee, 'natch... )

Assuming that NH hunters have to take a hunter safety class as part of their licensing, maybe hikers could be required to take a hiker safety class to get their hiking ticket? Y'know, things like the 10 Essentials, leaving a route plan/return ETA with a loved one, how quickly mountain weather can change, proper clothing/footwear, etc.

That wouldn't be a bad thing, would it?

I'm not well-versed enough in forum code to post up a poll...where's Chip when you need him?

Kevin, I get your point based on those comments but I have not seen such openness when they imposed climber's fees on Denali and Rainier. Most climber groups instead proposed to scale back rescues but (IMHO) the rescue bureaucracy wanted to preserve their jobs and funding.

The topic is timely as we are insolvent as a nation and about to witness the greatest (only??) contraction in government spending AND tax increases in our lifetimes. And all the fingers will start pointing.

J.Dub said:

If the gripe against NHF&G rescuing us crazy hikers is that it's essentially paid for by hunters, in the form of license fees, what would prevent NH from requiring hikers to be licenced (with the requisite fee, 'natch... )

Assuming that NH hunters have to take a hunter safety class as part of their licensing, maybe hikers could be required to take a hiker safety class to get their hiking ticket? Y'know, things like the 10 Essentials, leaving a route plan/return ETA with a loved one, how quickly mountain weather can change, proper clothing/footwear, etc.

Click to expand...

I think it's a great idea. Unfortunately (present company excluded) your average hiker believes it's their God Given Right to have free access to free, paved, plowed, safe parking lots and trailheads with clean, unoccupied privys, cleared, well marked trails, tourist-free summits AND to be rescued if needed, for free, even though they've had little or no formal training in their chosen sport and may or may not possess the correct equipment and personal strength and conditioning to perform it. Somewhere buried deep within their dark psyches is the knowledge that none of these services are actually free, that someone needs to pay for it, so it might as well be the murderous, beer swilling hunters and Cog riding cretans. Sad but true.

Chip said:

I think it's a great idea. Unfortunately (present company excluded) your average hiker believes it's their God Given Right to have free access to free, paved, plowed, safe parking lots and trailheads with clean, unoccupied privys, cleared, well marked trails, tourist-free summits AND to be rescued if needed, for free, even though they've had little or no formal training in their chosen sport and may or may not possess the correct equipment and personal strength and conditioning to perform it. Somewhere buried deep within their dark psyches is the knowledge that none of these services are actually free, that someone needs to pay for it, so it might as well be the murderous, beer swilling hunters and Cog riding cretans. Sad but true.

Click to expand...

Isn't that why we pay taxes?

RollingRock said:

Isn't that why we pay taxes?

Click to expand...

Without going all Right Wing on you, I'd have to say "No". I'd like hunting and fishing to be free, but I can understand why non-hunters don't want to be forced to contribute to the sport with higher taxes, so I gladly pay my fees for licensing and taxes on equipment to participate. I even understand that a lot of those fees go to other programs, like SAR, that benefit non-hunters. I don't know why hikers, generally, are so opposed to directly supporting their sport and are so happy to allow the general population, or hunters, to pay instead.

Edit: Before anybody corrects me: Obviously part of the federal budget is for maintaining public lands, and so we are paying taxes to do that. My point is that the extent to which roads, parking lots, trailhead facilities, trail access, SAR teams, etc. are maintained, for the sole benefit of hikers, goes well beyond what I'd expect and I wouldn't mind paying some reasonable fee to help directly support these services. Also, the thing with hunters and hikers makes me laugh. If all these parking lots and trails were primarily designated for hunters use and hikers had to buy licenses and pay taxes on their gear that supported that, well you can imagine what the response would be. But for some reason hunters are just supposed to shut up and pay up.

Chip said:

I don't know why hikers, generally, are so opposed to directly supporting their sport and are so happy to allow the general population, or hunters, to pay instead.

Click to expand...

I would have said the opposite - and maybe I am merely projecting. My belief is that most climbers and hikers would rather be left alone. I am much happier with the den-mothers off Katahdin and being allowed to climb it like any other mountain than being told when and how I can climb it. I think it's silly to require a fee for Denali when I have a far better chance of dying on many other Alaskan peaks.

And what really grinds me is when knuckleheads are enticed to climb (say) Denali because there is a promised safety net and then they call in the rescue when they shouldn't just because they paid for it.

There are reasonably priced rescue insurance programs that don't cost the govt a dime, transfer responsibility where it should be and encourage people to match their ambitions to their experiences.

And I'm naive enough to think this would work.

It should also be noted that volunteer SAR teams are getting ever more sophisticated and higher standards of training are required. Managing a Lost Person Incident(MLPI) training is required to be a Incident Commander, and technical rescue equipment is being purchased, either by fundraisers or government grants. The volunteers are also changing. Many backwoods volunteer SAR teams started with hunters, because they were the guys getting lost. Now there are more hikers, campers, canoers, climbers, etc, joining the teams.

What does this all mean? Well in some areas this means the professionals are losing their jobs to volunteer teams. They are moving from being the SAR people to being the SAR coordinators. This is the case with the Mounties up here in Canada. They have the search mandate, but the incident is run under the Incident Command System (ICS) with a joint command.... one mountie (authority) and one Search Manager (expertise). RCMP does provide helo services though, and they recently received orders to get all of their SAR liasons MLPI training.

Perhaps Parks Canada is an even better example... in their recent restructuring they have evaluated the mandate pertaining to SAR. The conclusion from the guys in Ottawa: "the act does not require that we provide rescue services". Basically if they provide adequate information about the hazards that visitors undertake when going into the back-country, they have done their due diligence. Now this does not mean they are leaving the visitors to their own devices entirely, but they are reducing their direct role and developing Memorandums of Understanding with volunteer SAR teams to provide SAR services. So long as the SAR teams are being properly trained and run (which I expect is a requirement of the MOU) this should be an adequate and low-cost solution. i.e. RCMP or Parks Canada will still pick up the tab on flight time, logistics, meals, etc. but they get a whole lot of hands without having to pay big bucks in overtime.

I know some of the Back-Country patrol types (Rangers, Wardens, whatever) are upset with this, but in a world where emergency services are more prevalent, communications more pervasive, and generally the world is getting a lot smaller, it may be the smart way to go.

True wilderness is getting harder and harder to find.

Of course if a fee was established to help cover costs, politicians would reduce existing budgets by the amount raised by fees and spend it somewhere else. We would be back to exactly where we are now.

Sometimes I feel like we should send a SAR team to Congress and rescue us.

Bigfoot said:

Of course if a fee was established to help cover costs, politicians would reduce existing budgets by the amount raised by fees and spend it somewhere else. We would be back to exactly where we are now.

Click to expand...

^^^Iz troo.

Chip said:

Also, the thing with hunters and hikers makes me laugh. If all these parking lots and trails were primarily designated for hunters use and hikers had to buy licenses and pay taxes on their gear that supported that, well you can imagine what the response would be. But for some reason hunters are just supposed to shut up and pay up.

Click to expand...

I have not looked at any Fish &Game expenditures/budget figures but I suspect the reason hunters/fishermen don't say much is because most of the licensing money collected does support their activities. If Search and Rescue costs started to impact their activities, they would probably be SCREAMING.

This is not scientific, just recall, but I think my license fees in CT have about tripled in the past 5 years. Between the fees increasing and hunting and fishing being less popular than they were 40 or 50 years ago, fewer licenses are being sold, so that well is drying up anyway. Some other form of financing will be needed, regardless. NY State has flat out closed parks and access because of their budget problems.

Apologies to Kevin for the thread drift here.

BoulderBum said:

Well in some areas this means the professionals are losing their jobs to volunteer teams. They are moving from being the SAR people to being the SAR coordinators. This is the case with the Mounties up here in Canada. They have the search mandate, but the incident is run under the Incident Command System (ICS) with a joint command.... one mountie (authority) and one Search Manager (expertise). RCMP does provide helo services though, and they recently received orders to get all of their SAR liasons MLPI training.

Perhaps Parks Canada is an even better example... in their recent restructuring they have evaluated the mandate pertaining to SAR. The conclusion from the guys in Ottawa: "the act does not require that we provide rescue services". Basically if they provide adequate information about the hazards that visitors undertake when going into the back-country, they have done their due diligence. Now this does not mean they are leaving the visitors to their own devices entirely, but they are reducing their direct role and developing Memorandums of Understanding with volunteer SAR teams to provide SAR services. So long as the SAR teams are being properly trained and run (which I expect is a requirement of the MOU) this should be an adequate and low-cost solution. i.e. RCMP or Parks Canada will still pick up the tab on flight time, logistics, meals, etc. but they get a whole lot of hands without having to pay big bucks in overtime.

Click to expand...

I think that SAR in NH is similar to the two examples described above for western Canada, with NH F&G overseeing SAR call outs, with volunteer SAR members assisting in a lot of the work on the ground, especially on occasions when multiple call outs occur within a short time frame.

My understanding is that there are typically a few slots open for hire in NH F&G, but that the training and exams are rigorous, and not everyone's cup of tea.

I really think that the fines for hiking negligence in the Whites were initially intended more as an educational tool rather than a SAR cost recovery program, which was working reasonably well until the the $25k bill came in for the private helo on the eagle scout SAR in April 2009. However, given all of publicity, perhaps even the failed attempt at cost recovery on this particular SAR was useful as an educational tool in the long run.