Fee-for-Rescue pros and cons

[DougPaul]

Ran across this:
American Alpine Club criticizes fee-for-rescue laws as misguided
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050517-1344-wst-climbingrescues.html

Doug

 

[mudhook51]

As a volunteer fire- tech rescue person, I do it because I enjoy it, because someone has to do it, because, because. I train long hours, run in burning buildings as others run out, rope down and up slopes, search all night in the worst weather, and jump through holes in the ice. Alot of unpleasant stuff as well. I don't expect to be paid or to send you a bill, even if you do something really stupid. A thank you is enough. Donations are great and tax deductable ,we use them to buy more equipment and training.

 

[Waumbek]

Thank you, Mudhook, to you and all the other SARs out there who do this just "because." Very few, I suspect, have the free time to read bbs, so please pass along the gratitude to those who don't.

 

[Jungledog]

No Rescue Wilderness

My Master’s Degree is in Outdoor and Environmental Education. My Thesis was labeled “A No-Rescue Wilderness: Will Social Psyche Allow This?” From pubs to lean-tos, this topic raised massive amounts of discussion just as I believe this thread will! All very interesting.

 

[Waumbek]

NH SAR Billing Stats

John Harrigan's outdoor column in today's Union Leader gives the statistics to answer the question I've been wondering about: has NH ever billed for SAR costs? The answer is, yes. Have they actually collected? No word on that. Here's the relevant part of his column:

"New Hampshire has a reckless hiking law, and has used it eight times since it was enacted in 1999 to go after negligent and careless people, mainly hikers, and bill them for their search and rescue costs.

The Associated Press story quoted the department's Todd Bogardus, who noted that the department doesn't even think of hassling people over ordinary accidents but only charges in cases of "gross recklessness."

 

[NewHampshire]

As a volunteer fire- tech rescue person, I do it because I enjoy it, because someone has to do it, because, because. I train long hours, run in burning buildings as others run out, rope down and up slopes, search all night in the worst weather, and jump through holes in the ice. Alot of unpleasant stuff as well. I don't expect to be paid or to send you a bill, even if you do something really stupid. A thank you is enough. Donations are great and tax deductable ,we use them to buy more equipment and training.

I too thank you! My grandfather was a Volunteer fireman for the town of goffstown and one of my Uncles is getting in to his last years of active duty on the Manchester fire department. I appreciate all that is done by our fire/medical/SAR and Law Enforcement professionals.
Brian

 

[bill bowden]

NH fee for rescue

Regardless of our opinions, at least in NH the legislature has spoken and established legal authority for Fish and Game to charge for rescue when careless and/or negligent conduct is involved.

For some years this policy was interpretted to apply only to cases where drugs or alcohol were involved. More recently, the increased number of rescues (primarily initiated by cellular telphone calls.) has led to a broader application of the careless/negligent idea to include any case where gear/planning was inadequate. So far as I know it has not been applied to the more common case of "falls, injures,need evacuation" but has been pretty rigorously applied to anything where "need more/different gear" was a problem.

IMO: The "new" policy appears to be driven more by frustration with "nonrescues" of hikers who are clueless, lost, or tired than by danger or expense associated with more classi cmountain rescues. Because the legislature was involved, there was great emphasis on the cost to the state of the rescues but no discussion of the economic benefits NH gets from hiker tourists. to probably misquote Matk Twain; "No man's life, liberty or property is safet so long as the legislature is in session."

 

[erd]

One issue that has not been touched on here, so far as I could see, is that the threat of fees, prosecution or other sanctions may make someone equipped with a cell phone or PRB reluctant to use it when it's actually needed. The results of delay in (for example) circumstances in which hypothermia is imminent may lead to a far worse emergency than a "premature rescue." The whole business of fees for rescue needs to be very carefully examined from this aspect, IMHO.

Ted.

 

[dougb]

Once Maybe, but Twice?

I think fee for rescue laws, like in NH, are fine when used appropriately. Eight times in 6 years means they're using it with some discretion.

How many recall this story? http://www.adirondackexplorer.com/abeacon.htm A canoer who was stranded by a blizzard went back, after being resuced, and had to be resuced again. Does anyone know the final outcome? The story just says he was arrested (and that VFTT had quite a discussion).

 

[John Graham]

I'm another SAR volunteer who says don't charge for rescues. I would much rather bring out a fool than carry out that fool's body. Who among us has not done something very foolish in the mountains at some point. I was found as a result of search and rescue at the age of three in Roswell N.M. Should efforts to find me have been delayed while bean counters argued over who was going to pay? Should my father, a poorly paid airforce officer, have been required to pay because I wandered off into the sagebrush. I'm making my payment now, it just took me 47 years to get around to it.

 

[Mad Townie]

The legal continuum for fault goes something like this:

Just plain dumb.
Stupid.
Negligent.
Grossly negligent.
Reckless.
Intentional.

I think it's a bad idea to make rescue "insurance" the subject of a for-profit structure, but it's not such a bad idea to have it administered by the state conservation departments or the game wardens. That would take care of Twigeater's concern.

The rule could be that you don't have to buy it, but if you don't and you're reckless (a pretty high standard of messing up) then you pay. If you buy it, you don't have to worry.

The department administering the program would make the initial determination of whether a person would be charged, and that person would have the right of appeal, first to the agency and then to the courts. That gives the person his (we're talking about stupidity here, I didn't want to attribute that to "her" ) due process rights but places on him the burden of contesting a fine rather than placing it on the agency before they can impose a fine.

Frankly, I think the same kind of rule would be a good one for things like motorcycle helmet laws. [flame shield on]

 

[WhiteMTHike]

As a volunteer fire- tech rescue person, I do it because I enjoy it, because someone has to do it, because, because. I train long hours, run in burning buildings as others run out, rope down and up slopes, search all night in the worst weather, and jump through holes in the ice. Alot of unpleasant stuff as well. I don't expect to be paid or to send you a bill, even if you do something really stupid. A thank you is enough. Donations are great and tax deductable ,we use them to buy more equipment and training.

This world needs more people like this.

 

[twigeater]

Originally posted by Mad Townie
but it's not such a bad idea to have it administered by the state conservation departments or the game wardens. That would take care of Twigeater's concern.

 

[twigeater]

and thank-you SAR people for the responses and for being there!