Fee-for-Rescue pros and cons

Fee-for-Rescue pros and cons article.

How much are you worth?

"When the hiker's wife was told there was no charge, she said, 'I wish I'd have known that. I would have called you a lot earlier'."

Article said:

Climbing rescues cost less than many people realize, Athearn said. The military doesn't charge because it considers the rescues a training opportunity, and most mountain search and rescue teams are volunteers who don't expect to be paid.

Click to expand...

The monies generated by charging negligent people for rescues could go towards training, supplies etc. for search and rescue teams.

-Dr. Wu

I was just discussing this with a friend last night - he said he thinks people should pay if they *f* up. I disagreed, because the definition of a *f* up is a matter of opinion, and who's opinion determines fee or no fee?

I told him just the fact that I hike solo could be considered negligent by some - he thought that was ridiculous. So do I, but some don't.

Do sailors that need rescue do to bad weather get billed? IMO they should if hikers get billed for poor jugment.

But the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association supports Oregon's fee-for-rescue law as a way to reimburse taxpayers for rescuing people who were unprepared or negligent.

This in my mind is the tricky part. Some Hikers and Climbers seem to have a bonified accident. Others seem to be downright negligent. The active word here being "SEEM". How do we go about proving that someone or somebodies have been actually negligent short of a court of law. Is there any formal process as of yet for "Judging" these situations? This issue is definitively a gray area in IMO. If we could come up with a process to definitely determine if people are actually negligent then I would support a "Law". Does a law in place serve as a deterrent at this point....In other words does the Law serve to make people be more prepared and self reliant; and if there were not a law would more people just be bringing their Cell Phones and leaving the Ten Essentials at home?

I agree - its a matter of opinion - lets use the pressies in winter for example. - I am pretty sure right now that "fast and light" is one accepted ways of traveling above treeline in winter for folks. I for one - on day trips will not carry a tent and sleeping bag - and I know I am not alone. But - I also know that many people do carry this stuff - just in case. I think both groups are right - its just a choice.

Now - if the poop hit the fan - I would have down jacket and pack to use as "bivy" - who knows if this is enough in -20 temps and I might need rescuing someday - would I be negligent??- I don't think so - but some may differ.

as for the volenteers , fire, resuce, etc.. this is what they do - if they didn't want to do it - they wouldn't be on the team. I have also never heard sars folks complaining about this - its always other folks. They probably love going out there finding someone (just a hunch). If I lived closer to the whites - I would volenteer.

that being said - someone trying to climb in january with sneakers, etc... well then - maybe that would be wrong.

The only way to get more cash is the way other parks do it - like rainier - I believe part of their permit system has some $$ for rescue costs - but could be wrong.

I am not for any of this stuff - I think federal taxes should cover most of costs. We pay for parks to be maintained, we pay for the national guard chopper fuel. accidents happen - its just part of the game. and for the amount of people the head to the mountains in winter now - its not that many accidents.

$$

twigeater said:

I was just discussing this with a friend last night - he said he thinks people should pay if they *f* up. I disagreed, because the definition of a *f* up is a matter of opinion, and who's opinion determines fee or no fee?

I told him just the fact that I hike solo could be considered negligent by some - he thought that was ridiculous. So do I, but some don't.

Click to expand...

This where the problem lies...what is negligient? Are people that hike all of the time with adequate equipment immune to paying? Is it only the new and inexperienced that get in over their heads? There are situations that definietly warrant being charged but there is a ton of grey area on this.

I also solo a good deal...I do not think there is anything wrong about this as long as you have an itinerary and people who know when you would be "late."

I did read a story in Appalacia a while back about some people that had almost no winter expereince getting into a jam on the Wildcat Ridge Trail. They claimed they were in trouble (frozen limbs) and needed to be rescue. This was and exaggeration and they were charged (I think) $900. This seems to be fitting as they ignored warning and were ill prepared for their trip.

skiguy said:

But the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association supports Oregon's fee-for-rescue law as a way to reimburse taxpayers for rescuing people who were unprepared or negligent.

This in my mind is the tricky part. Some Hikers and Climbers seem to have a bonified accident. Others seem to be downright negligent. The active word here being "SEEM".

Click to expand...

Agreed. A very few cases seem obvious, most are not. I'm recalling the incident, I think it was on Monadnock or another So. NH mountain, when a bunch of teenagers climbed to the summit in the dark (or late in the day) with some six-packs, got lost, then cell-phoned 911. I think those are the details roughly. What would the defense lawyer say on their behalf beyond the obvious that they were young and inexperienced and not intentionally malicious, etc? (NH did not prosecute, by the way, as far as I know, although they threatened.) We've all done stupid things. Defining when stupid becomes negligent is the tricky part. Few of us think in legal terms, which can be quite different from a layperson's approach (right, Gris?). Ignorance is no defense, etc. Classic case: hikers come up from FL and climb to Lonesome Lake in April thinking it's spring here 'cause it looks OK at 2000' in the Notch, there are no "rangers" around to say differently, they get in trouble, don't have gear, call 911, etc. Unprepared, yes, but negligent or just naive? (Lawyers might say one thing, non-lawyers another, too.) I think we could define "unprepared," but we all know that we could never on this board agree on what "prepared" means although we sure could debate it for a long time. (Those threads on "cotton kills" evoke intense debate always). I think NH has typically asked adult risk-takers to donate to the cost of their rescue. The physician from Maine who got into trouble on Washington made a donation. What the article didn't give, and I'd like to know, are instances in which states have atually prosecuted and their rationales.

Tyrannies are created in the name of safety.

Giggy said:

I think federal taxes should cover most of costs. We pay for parks to be maintained, we pay for the national guard chopper fuel. accidents happen - its just part of the game. and for the amount of people the head to the mountains in winter now - its not that many accidents.

Click to expand...

At some point a high profile, expensive rescue will spark a public debate (as per the article), and somewhere, taxpayers/politicians are going to want to see one of two things: Either some sort of re-imbursement and accountability of cost spent on rescue, or limitations and regulations set down in order to minimize the amount of rescues that could potentially occur. This second option will unjustly blanket everyone regardless of skill level and limit our access. This would seem draconian to us, but perfectly acceptable to those that do not understand that going solo, winter fast hiking, backpacking in general etc., can be done safely by those who are prepared and are experienced. The public and their representatives will make this decision for us. Trust me, I'm in the aviation business, and there's nothing worse than people who do not understand how the industry works making decisions and passing regulations that limit what we can do, often based on gross public misinformation.

In my opinion, better to protect our future access to the outdoors now by installing a system of fee-based rescues rather than waiting for others to make that decision for us.

New Hampshire's fee-for-rescue case by case basis is a good start, I think. Back in my home-country, I can drop something like 50 bucks with the rescue operator, and be insured for the year if I need to be rescued. I can also opt out, and hope that that one freak accident doesn't take me to the point where I need rescuing and then incur the high cost of helicopter rescue.

and along comes another gray area...

Originally Posted by sapblatt
I also solo a good deal...I do not think there is anything wrong about this as long as you have an itinerary and people who know when you would be "late."

Click to expand...

I don't do that either...the joy of being solo - my plans often change along the way.

Waumbek said:

I'm recalling the incident, I think it was on Monadnock or another So. NH mountain, when a bunch of teenagers climbed to the summit in the dark (or late in the day) with some six-packs, got lost, then cell-phoned 911.

Click to expand...

I think this incident happened on Cardigan . I think it was one of the first in which a group was charged under the NH law.

-dave-

Re Cardigan incident: "Col. Alie said his Department will review the situation to see if the hikers acted recklessly."

Did NH actually prosecute? What was the outcome?

"Reckless" seems to be the operative word in deciding these cases.

twigeater said:

and along comes another gray area...



I don't do that either...the joy of being solo - my plans often change along the way.

Click to expand...

I change plans too, but a few key things I do not change...like where i am staying and what time I will contact my wife on my day out of the woods. It is not flawless, but at least if I do not surface there will be some idea of where I have been or should have been. It just makes it easier for the forensic experts!

I think all rescues should be done for a fee. It encourages prudence and good judgement.

Of course there would be exceptions like fee waiving for active SAR members.

Then there should be rescue insurance to cover the cost of the rescue.

Originally Posted by sapblatt
I change plans too, but a few key things I do not change...like what time I will contact my wife on my day out of the woods.

Click to expand...

Ah! well, my co-workers know when I'm supposed to be back at work - so I'm covered!

I think all rescues should be done for a fee. It encourages prudence and good judgement.

Click to expand...

I think you may be on to something. How about a small fee for voluntary purchase of "rescue insurance" at the time you purchase a parking pass.
Just a guess,but 5 bucks a head should fund an average years rescue budget.
Of course there would have to be a caveat for "willful negligence" to keep the yahoos from using it as a shuttle service.

Originally Posted by KayakDan
How about a small fee for voluntary purchase of "rescue insurance" at the time you purchase a parking pass.

Click to expand...

Insurance companies are the devil!!
I envision 5 page forms to be filled out in triplicate by each person - assessing risk, etc...probably not $5.

John H Swanson said:

I think all rescues should be done for a fee.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with a prior fee is that it creates expectation of rescue and the legal obligation for the collecting agency to provide the rescue. (Opens them to suit, etc.)

Another issue is that the fee would go to the authories or professionals--what about the volunteers? Why should they help if someone else is being paid while they do a large part (the bulk of?) the work.

In contrast to the US, the European rescues are generally done by professional guides who charge. Insurance is readilly available.

BTW, AAC membership includes rescue insurance.

A problem with the "charge the reckless" (in effect a fine without due process) is that the judgement is based upon fuzzy criteria. For instance, a number of people on this BBS bushwack solo in winter--which many would consider reckless no matter how experienced the hiker may be. Fortunately the authorities have been restrained so far, but one can only hope that they remain so.

And "free" fire department services or naval rescue is paid for by taxes, in effect an insurance system.

I think this is an often-discussed problem with no solution which satisfies everyone.

Doug

Hmmmm, who should be the judge of who was negligent or not? How about the people doing the rescue? Have a board of SAR/EMTs (the ones responsible directly for rescuing you) review the case and determine if the person was "negligent ot not". I can already hear the cries of "but how was I supposed to now bushwacking through the Pemi wilderness with no compas, map and food was a bad idea!" Well, because these folks say it was .
Brian

NewHampshire said:

Hmmmm, who should be the judge of who was negligent or not? How about the people doing the rescue? Have a board of SAR/EMTs (the ones responsible directly for rescuing you) review the case and determine if the person was "negligent ot not". I can already hear the cries of "but how was I supposed to now bushwacking through the Pemi wilderness with no compas, map and food was a bad idea!" Well, because these folks say it was .
Brian

Click to expand...

It's not the obviouse case that will be questioned, it is the borderline one that will cause the trouble. If its a board of rescuers, then their bias will influence the decision one way, if its a board of hikers, their bias will influence the decision a different way. A solution may be a joint board, but that still will leave open all types of regualtor questions.

Then you have the question which was touched upon already, why are certain rescues free of charge, such as coast guard, fire, EMT or police, regardless of negligence, yet these types of rescues are to be fee based? Can't be because of cost of the rescue or danger to the rescuer, any NYC firefighter will prove you wrong. Fee based rescues seem to be descriminatory against those whose arena of recreation are the hills of nature