View Full Version : Stupidity at heart of matter in Search and Rescue debate
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/04/22/news/local/news04.txt
A lot of communities are already debating the same things. If idiots ignore the rules and need to be rescued, THEY should foot the bill, collecting will be the problem. I believe some areas of the US are already trying to collect.
I agree, If you get yourself into a situation where you need rescue, you should pay whatevever the cost to get yourself out of the situation. It shouldnt matter whether you are a experienced hiker or not...you got yourself into the mess...you should be willing to pay your way out of it...not the local taxpayer!
SGTdirtman
04-22-2006, 21:19
Thats pretty dumb in my opinion... what if something tragic happens by mistake at no fault of stupidity or ignorance? people get lost in bad conditions, sick, hurt. why should it cost them money to get help?
And besides that we all pay tons of money in taxes and insurance anyway. between the insurance companies and the taxes we give the government we should get all the free emergency rescues we want no matter what retarded thing someone does.
Is that really you Ridge?;)
RockSteady
04-22-2006, 23:58
I just happened upon an emergency in which a young girl slipped down a mountainside in central Tennessee. I would hope that she is not charged for the rescurers attempting to save her life. She did take a risk by going into the wilderness, but we all take risks everyday by getting into a car. I believe more than anything it would turn people off to the wilderness by setting the example that if you go out and get hurt you pay. I for one prefer people to disover the wilderness, not avoid it. I do believe that you should be prepared but accidents happen everywhere.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
04-23-2006, 00:25
Rather than charging only those that need to be rescued, I'd rather see hefty fines for those who do stupid stuff like ignore warning signs, snow mobile in avalanche zones, canoe / kayak without life vest, etc. and the money from those fines earmarked to fund rescues.
As SGTdirtman and RockSteady note, some rescues have nothing to do with stupidity, they are unavoidable accidents.
RockSteady
04-23-2006, 00:31
I agree frolicking Dinasour. The girl in this instance actually did nothing wrong. We have had a lot of rain in the area that made the trail slicker than normal and she fell. Could have happened to any of us. She was flown to Erlanger which is a good sign. Great hospital and it means she made it out alive. I agree with disregarding warnings, but in her case there were no warnings. Everytime we step out the door we are taking a chance, some are just bigger than others. I would think driving is probably more dangerous than hiking anyday.
The General
04-23-2006, 00:36
Some interesting arguments here on both sides. In the UK most of the rescue services are staffed by un paid volunteers that includes the Mountain Rescue Teams and the Life Boat Service, there are a few full time paid posts but most are manned by volunteers. Most but not all AIR SEA and Mountain Rescue Helicopters are from the Royal Air Force which the Taxpayer will pay for other Funding comes from public donations and fundraising along with some other government funding raised from the
National Lottery.
Who is liable to pay should not be an issue, Yes there are some people who partake in wilderness or mountain pursuits ill equiped and are at best a liability to themselves and those that have to rescue them. but money and who pays it should not be the issue of whether they should be rescued or
not.
we humans give more money freely to animal welfare charities around the world than we do for the welfare of our fellow man, dont get me wrong Ive nothing against animals or the charities that support their welfare. I just think that we at time have our priorities wrong.
When I hike in the US I take out extra insurence just in case
I have to pay someone to tow my car if it breaks down, maybe my fault it broke, maybe not. Just think of the cost of getting your butt out by volunteers using choppers, etc. I agree, each rescue is different, but as the article stated the majority is just stupidity. I believe community service, fines, etc would be one way to pay back the locals for the expense of S & R operations. On another note, I know some of these guys LIVE to search for someone, and thats great, helping someone lost get out is almost enough reward in itself, but someone still has to pay for the resources it took to do so. Its just hard to fix stupid.
KirkMcquest
04-23-2006, 08:45
It would be a great idea if the money would be used to A. purchase more park/forest land. or at least B. Help fund existing park/forest land. But we all know that rescue money would end up back in the big pot, just like social security.
Given the sad reality of our system, I am against this proposal.
NH has had a similar law on the books for some years now. It was passed by the legislature after a series of expensive rescues of people who were either poorly prepared or reckless. IIRC in 1983 two young ice climbers went out in deteriortating conditions with inadequate gear, got lost, and caused a multi-day search including the use of National Guard aircraft which cost a significant amount of money. The climbers were eventually rescued but at least one lost his legs to frostbite. During the search an avalanche killed a volunteer rescue climber.
Add to this:
-the bonehead with a cell phone and GPS who got lost and called 911. Officials plotted his position and told him to walk downhill short distance and he would find a trail. He refused to move and insisted that he be rescued.
-The guy who stabbed himself in the thigh while trying to chop firewood with a large knife. Rescuers carried him over rough terrain to the Wildcat ski area gondola lift (on the AT) at which point the guy gets out of the stokes litter and WALKS to the lift for the ride down.
-Another incident on the AT on Wildcat where three clowns got drunk and left one member of their group behind when he had trouble on the first ledges N of Pinkham Notch. The other two camped higher up the mountain. The next day another hiker found the lone man unresponsive and wrapped in an unpitched tent. He apparently died from hypothermia while drunk, and a nearly-empty bottle was found with him.
I understand both sides of the debate but I think there needs to be some way of making people accountable in incidents like these. Going into the backcountry requires planning and preparation and some level of common sense. I think NH officials only pursue financial reimbursement when there's clear evidence of negligence, and they give the benefit of the doubt whenever an issue looks gray.
Now that I live in Asheville, NC I see even more incidents of this type. Every year people die after climbing waterfalls and slipping. A couple of years ago three people were dragged out of the Smokies in mid-winter wearing jeans, sneakers, and light shirts and all were in severely hypothermic condition. Smokies officials have discussed enacting a similar policy but I don't think it went anywhere (this time.)
Any one of us could break a leg, suffer a heart attack, or sudden illness while hiking. But there's a difference between a true accident and reckless behavior or negligence. I do think in the more blatent cases people should be held accountable, not only in the backcountry but in general.
My two cents.:-?
In order to charge a person for a rescue, I think he would have to ask to be rescued. If someone is lost for a few days and a search party is organized without his calling for it, he should not be responsible even if negligent.
I recall some kids a few years ago who got trapped in a snowstorm in Oregon. The community went nuts because they were teenagers and mounted a huge rescue effort that was turned back because of the blizzard. WHen the snow stopped, and the team went back, they met the teenagers coming down. They had built a snow cave and managed very well.
The state still charged the kids for the rescue. I don't know it they still had to pay or not, but they either paid the state or a bunch of lawyers.
I am not opposed to charging the unprepared and foolish even before they need help as FD suggests, but it is a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what constitutes unprepared? Not you. State legislatures will decide when they make the laws. You may find yourself being required to carry maps (that should get half the thruhikers fined), water purification devices, signalling devices (maybe even cell phones - remember, these are politicians making the laws)
The flip side of this issue (stupid hikers) is much more expensive. I am thinkng here of hikers who sure after they get hurt. Families of canyon hikers in Utah who sued the Park service after a flash flood drowned some of the party. I remember in backpacker magazine (years ago when I still read it) about the mother of a kid who fell while rock climbing in the Grtand Tetons. SHe was surprised to see a high ranking park service official visit them inthe hospital, then realized he was very concerned about the boy's mother suing the park service.
Taking responsibity works both ways.
People who ask for help when they don't need it or were not carrying survival gear should pay. Collection is a problem, but states/national parks can solve that by requiring permits of everyone who hikes. The permit would require hikers to provide a credit card that could be charged in the event a rescue is needed and asked for. That way if a frivolous resecue is requested, the moron would be charged, and the money could go to trail maintenance or something. And if someone gets into trouble and can't afford a rescue or just doesn't want to pay the huge bill for one, they have the option of staying up in the woods and dying up there, thereby reducing future crowding of shelters/trails.
Classic win-win.
To my way of thinking, the time to begin charging unprepared outdoors people for rescue should be right after we start charging drunk drivers for the gas in the Jaws of Life used to pry them out of thier cars. Or perhaps after we start to charging fat people extra when the paramedics are called out for an MI.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
04-23-2006, 14:21
As someone who has been pried out of a car with the jaws of life because the driver that hit me head-on was on drugs and in my lane, I've had no ethical problem at all with forcing him (or actually his insurance company) to pay the roughly $225,000 of medical bills to put me back together again (or at least as much as they can). No one has questioned that his reckless behavior caused this accident and that he was responsible for the costs. Perhaps if insurance companies were required to pay for rescues, they would be charging those who engage in risky behaviors more - a lot more - for insurance, just as they now charge those previously convicted of DUI far more than others.
Your fire department did not get paid by the drunk, or the insurance company.
Your fire department's costs were born by the community, because of your community's values.
All I am saying is that if the government wants to start charging for rescues, there are better places to start than with some hiker who gets in over his head.