Waumbek
New member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,890
- Reaction score
- 209
The monies generated by charging negligent people for rescues could go towards training, supplies etc. for search and rescue teams.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.
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.
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".
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.
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."
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.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.
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.
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.
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.I think all rescues should be done for a fee. It encourages prudence and good judgement.
Originally Posted by KayakDan
How about a small fee for voluntary purchase of "rescue insurance" at the time you purchase a parking pass.
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.)John H Swanson said:I think all rescues should be done for a fee.
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
Enter your email address to join: