View Full Version : Who Should Pay for Rescues? What is the Fair Allocation of Risk?
New Hampshire has a law which, in certain circumstances, requires rescuees to foot the bill if they get caught atop a mountain and require rescue. Do other states have similar laws? What about the National Parks and other federally administered properties? What do you think?
A mod shut down a thread specifcally about the NH law, which is a couple years old. This thread is about the general topic. B/c the mods seem to want to shut down any hint of uncivil political discourse, let's try and keep it respectful here.
I come down on the side, generally, of not making stranded folk in need of rescue pay the cost of rescue. But I'm not hard and fast on that. I understand there are extreme places such as high mountain peaks where people now have to pay, and if someone or a group were truly reckless and got themselves into a fix, I could see a fine of some sort if a fair system could be set forth. What do you think?
Driver the NPS started to charge the individuals in tthe early 80's. It seems the budget couldn't afford the cost of so many backpackers and climbers being rescued. The ciost of man hours to include the cost of helicopters at times triple during season. Is it Right I dont know but a Federal judge said yes. I have friends that are volunteer SAR in Texas. Their one of the National Volunteer teams go anywhere. They put alot of their own money into the gear. The training is picked up by fund raisers and grants. Thats all I know about it. But if your really stupid yes pay a fine. But if its a real Emergency, No crap happens.
I think if its stupidity then YES the stupid should pay the bill, but if you get hurt or lost or stranded due to storm or other natural occurrence, I think you shouldn't have to pay. BUT who will make the decision ?
I'm torn on this one. Much of what y'all say when it comes down to someone being ignorant then yes ignorance should pay the bill. Sometimes people do things in order to show how they can live on the edge. Well then when the edge yes to close for comfort then you pay. But if someone or some group of bikers are already up there for a length of time and the weather changes at the drop of a hat then maybe spilt the cost . Because going on a mountain is a persons choice of their own. Taxes aren't geared to how many rescues are or might happen at a given time. But if someone has fallen or suffered a medical emergency of which is unforeseen such as stroke, heart attack, passed out , something along that nature then insurance should step in and help with the cost. Rescuers are paid by tax payers of that given territory and it can get mighty costly if the is a continuation of people needing to be rescued on the tax payers dollar.
kayak karl
12-28-2010, 17:00
there will come a time in the near future when we will need to carry hikers insurance. no matter what happens or why we will pay one way or another.
I think that folks who request or require rescue because of poor planing on their part should be required to pay at least part of the rescue costs.
A lot of folks today, with a cell phone think they don't need much else to venture into the mountains or forests. Because of the phone they believe that someone will bail them out if they get into trouble so they don't do a proper job of preperation. These folks need to pay for rescue costs.
Folks who go out with the proper experience and equipment and get injured or sick through no falt of their own and need rescue should be asked to pay a part of the cost. Especialy when the rescuers have to put themselves in danger.
Ladytrekker
12-28-2010, 17:27
This runs on a very fine line. Each state, community, etc has trained rescue personnel that sits on ready for rescue purposes. The county, city, state has a budgeted amount for their rescue personnel expecting that emergencies arise and that people will need rescuing. The fine line becomes evident when a person knowlingy puts themselves in danger and then puts the rescue personnel in danger.
But to me does that mean that a person must enter everything they do in life as "Enter at your own risk" or do we have the right to experience things hoping that if we get into unplanned conditons that we will be rescued. And should that rescue be our financial responsibility. When you think of it fiscally you pay state and federal taxes thru your jobs, sales tax, gas tax, liquour tax, property tax and more so don't we have the right to expect rescuing when we have in fact funded it to begin with.
Just my two cents.
I tend to agree with you, LadyTrekker. If it can be established that someone behaved recklessly, thus necessitating rescue, I could see a fine, up to the cost of the rescue, with the potential of judicial appeal. I'm resistant to the notion of fee-for-service government, however. At some point it just becomes mercenary and the state ceases to exist. I'm not in for a return to medieval times.
A mod shut down a thread specifcally about the NH law, which is a couple years old. This thread is about the general topic. B/c the mods seem to want to shut down any hint of uncivil political discourse, let's try and keep it respectful here.
I thought I explained it fairly well why the thread was shut down. Not only was it a two year thread that was bumped today it was drifting off topic. If you have something new to add to the NH law, I'll open it up again. If a thread gets closed, try not to feel like you're being personally persecuted, and life's not fair. :p
Bob McCaw
12-28-2010, 17:38
If I were the state of New Hampshire, I'd look at the question as a business decision. By promoting hiking, New Hampshire derives revenue -- both directly, from fees to enter state parks, etc., and indirectly, through motel rooms, restaurants, and so forth.
Given, it costs New Hampshire a certain amount of money to rescue hikers who get into trouble, a certain number of whom are idiots. If you raise the threat of fines, you're going to lose some hikers/revenue. I would imagine the cost of a few rescues is nothing like the revenue New Hampshire gets each year from promoting hiking. So, on the whole, you don't want to go overboard in charging hikers for rescues.
OTOH, there's no harm in trying to encourage some level of responsibility. If you threaten to charge for rescues but rarely do it, maybe that's the net effect of the present law.
Driver the NPS started to charge the individuals in tthe early 80's. It seems the budget couldn't afford the cost of so many backpackers and climbers being rescued.
Is there some system for that, hobbs, with the NPS? Can you buy insurance? Is there some vetting system? (What is your experience? What is your gear? Trip plan? Provisioning? Bail outs?) I'm curious about this.
I think part of why people hike is the freedom of the experience and the interaction with wilderness. Inherent in that is some risk - easy to step on a poisonous snake unawares, not hard to find oneself on the wrong end of a rockslide, or a tree falling on one's campsite, even with careful planning, much less to get caught in a fast-arising thunderstorm or snow storm in some locales.
I thought I explained it fairly well why the thread was shut down. Not only was it a two year thread that was bumped today it was drifting off topic. If you have something new to add to the NH law, I'll open it up again. If a thread gets closed, try not to feel like you're being personally persecuted, and life's not fair. :p
Lol. It's such an awful lot, that of the downtrodden white blaze masses. Oh the woe! :rolleyes:
Sly, I don't go in for shutting down threads pre-emptively. It's excessive - for goodness sake, it's a discussion board, and discussions, here, as elsewhere, wander at times, at times die, then later revive. Freedom! And can you explain how to revive a thread, by the way, when it's been closed? Does that involve coming to a mod and asking pretty please or some such, when it's easier just to start another thread on a related topic?
IOW, I disagree with you and with your decision to shut down the other thread - it's a free country, your horrid oppression** n/w/standing. ;)
(**please note the tongue firmly implanted cheek - just in case it weren't obvious)
Just to close: I agree with the need for moderation. I just think it should be exercised with a light touch, a sort of "leave no trace" ethic, and warnings should be issued, as I've seen on other boards which, in my experience, are lesser fora in most other regards.
And I am not shy about speaking my mind on this, or much of anything else. ... :)
OTOH, there's no harm in trying to encourage some level of responsibility. If you threaten to charge for rescues but rarelIf I were the state of New Hampshire, I'd look at the question as a business decision. By promoting hiking, New Hampshire derives revenue -- both y do it, maybe that's the net effect of the present law.
Common sensical - I like this, so long as it were applied with similar common sense and w/o favoritism. ...
This runs on a very fine line. Each state, community, etc has trained rescue personnel that sits on ready for rescue purposes. The county, city, state has a budgeted amount for their rescue personnel expecting that emergencies arise and that people will need rescuing. The fine line becomes evident when a person knowlingy puts themselves in danger and then puts the rescue personnel in danger.
But to me does that mean that a person must enter everything they do in life as "Enter at your own risk" or do we have the right to experience things hoping that if we get into unplanned conditons that we will be rescued. And should that rescue be our financial responsibility. When you think of it fiscally you pay state and federal taxes thru your jobs, sales tax, gas tax, liquour tax, property tax and more so don't we have the right to expect rescuing when we have in fact funded it to begin with.
Just my two cents.
You think you got a right to free rescue because you pay your taxes? Also the rescue folks are just sitting around waiting for your call...Think you are wrong on both points.
Ladytrekker
12-28-2010, 18:15
How bout that NH law.
You think you got a right to free rescue because you pay your taxes? Also the rescue folks are just sitting around waiting for your call...Think you are wrong on both points.
I dunno, Grampie, it sounds well and good, your perspective, until you're the unlucky hiker who steps unawares on a rattle snake descending Race Mountain, say, and require an expensive Med-E-Vac. Are you saying the hiker should have to go into her or his pocket to pay for this? Should health insurance cover it? Maybe a homeowner's policy rider? Not sure how many of those would issue - how would you fairly reckon the premium and insurability? Starts to be a can of worms, seems to me.
kayak karl
12-28-2010, 18:18
has anyone ever had to pay for rescue from the AT and what were the circumstances.
I dunno, Grampie, it sounds well and good, your perspective, until you're the unlucky hiker who steps unawares on a rattle snake descending Race Mountain, say, and require an expensive Med-E-Vac. Are you saying the hiker should have to go into her or his pocket to pay for this? Should health insurance cover it? Maybe a homeowner's policy rider? Not sure how many of those would issue - how would you fairly reckon the premium and insurability? Starts to be a can of worms, seems to me.
That's not what I said. If you required to be evacuated would you not expect to pay for some of the costs? It's the same if you are in a auto accident and Life Star is called to take you to a hospital and your insurance co says that you didn't require life star and won't pay. You will get billed for the service.
I agree with ladytrekker and driver8 she is right in the sense they are sitting around most of the time waiting for something to happen. Well when it does it's time to go to work. With all due respect Driver8 is correct SLY in the sense how could you possibly expect to bring a subject up that involves the taxing population and not expect it to go political. Shutting a thread down when it starts going in a direction you don't approve of isn't freedom it's something else all together and if you don't want things to venture in a direction your not happy with why bring it up in the first place. No one is swearing or belittling anyone they are all giving an opinion. That's all folks.
there will come a time in the near future when we will need to carry hikers insurance. no matter what happens or why we will pay one way or another.
Karl is correct. It is almost certainly just a matter of time before hikers, climbers, paddlers, skiers and so forth will be required to have some sort of insurance if they want to use public land. If they don't have it, and they need to be rescued, they will have to foot the bill.
It's been brought up before. I am sure it will be brought up again.
My bad SLY I didn't realize driver8 started this thread . Sorry
SassyWindsor
12-28-2010, 21:26
My position is that if a hiker or group of hikers fail to register at a trail-head or HQ then they should pay for any rescue plus have a fine levied. Regardless if registration is available or not, you should leave an itinerary with someone you know, period. Idiots abound and must take responsibility for their actions and the fines or penalties will have to be determined by those in charge and/or by state statue. I see people all the time, miles from a trail-head, dressed in t-shirts, jeans and flip flops not realizing that hypothermia is a rainstorm on the other side of the mountain.
Who is going to open a hiker insurance company? Sounds like a great idea.... :)
Some insurance companies already offer a "travel rider" for trips, not sure if they'd do one for hiking.
Maybe split the cost 50/50, after all, you know you're proceeding into a myriad of possibilities on the dangerous side, it's not like anyone is making you hike - or causing you to make bad decisions. :)
Joshuatree
12-28-2010, 21:39
Why not put a sales taxe on Outdoor gear other states do it on fishing and hunting gear. They use the funds to pay for parking areas, boat ramps, land protection, and restocking programs. A couple fractions of a cent can make alot of money to pay for rescuers and gear. But then you also need a law to fine people who basicly make fraudulent use of S&R devices or cellphones. unless it is proven you feared death or disablity because you are lost or injured. if you make people who call for rescue for nonemergency reasons pay for the "rescue" ride back to their car. It might make people more careful if they head into the more rustic areas of our states
Slosteppin
12-28-2010, 21:42
Interesting thread and some interesting attitudes.
I've never been rescued from a hiking situation so I can't speak from experience. I have hiked (and done some skiing) in NH. It has always been my attitude that when I take the risk of hiking in the woods it is my problem to get myself back home. I usually increase the risk by hiking alone and often off trail. If I were to be rescued (and I lived through the experience) I think I should pay something to the people who saved my life.
I have been in three auto accidents. Taxes paid for the police but insurance (that I pay for) paid for the ambulance, hospital, wrecker and vehicle repairs.
I don't believe that there are people in most states just sitting around waiting for a search and rescue mission. I think most SAR people are volunteers while search managers are from some government agency.
All that said, I also believe the most dangerous part of a hike is the drive to the Trail Head.
Just my opinion,
Slosteppin
HiKen2011
12-28-2010, 21:49
This runs on a very fine line. Each state, community, etc has trained rescue personnel that sits on ready for rescue purposes. The county, city, state has a budgeted amount for their rescue personnel expecting that emergencies arise and that people will need rescuing. The fine line becomes evident when a person knowlingy puts themselves in danger and then puts the rescue personnel in danger.
But to me does that mean that a person must enter everything they do in life as "Enter at your own risk" or do we have the right to experience things hoping that if we get into unplanned conditons that we will be rescued. And should that rescue be our financial responsibility. When you think of it fiscally you pay state and federal taxes thru your jobs, sales tax, gas tax, liquour tax, property tax and more so don't we have the right to expect rescuing when we have in fact funded it to begin with.
Just my two cents.
I agree, we already pay for rescues even that there are no rescues!
4eyedbuzzard
12-28-2010, 21:50
One of the problems with fining or billing people for S&R is that people who need it may refrain from calling / signaling as they are afraid of getting fines. The outcome could then be making a necessary rescue more difficult and riskier and/or expensive, or even death. It's a two edged sword. You want to push people toward personal responsibility, punish those who are not, and recoup extraordinary costs - but not to the point where people disregard their own safety when they do make a mistake, have an accident, lose control of a situation, etc.
SAR is just part and parcel of the maintenance expense of public land like access roads, rangers, etc.
It'd be like a police department sending a bill to a motorist for having to respond to a wreck...
Sadly that actually happens.
Whatever... police, fire, SAR, rangers, etc. are part of the human infrastructure necessary to carry out public business. My tax monies go to a hundred different things that I'll never use or even want but some things make sense to pay for communally. Public lands and their associated costs are one such thing.
My position is that if a hiker or group of hikers fail to register at a trail-head or HQ then they should pay for any rescue plus have a fine levied. Regardless if registration is available or not, you should leave an itinerary with someone you know, period. Idiots abound and must take responsibility for their actions and the fines or penalties will have to be determined by those in charge and/or by state statue. I see people all the time, miles from a trail-head, dressed in t-shirts, jeans and flip flops not realizing that hypothermia is a rainstorm on the other side of the mountain.
IT's also our responcibility to each other from letting this happen by stpoing real quick and giving our .02 cents to them. I also agree that you should be held accountble for your actions. But whats to say they wont just up and create fines to to make revenue in their counties or state? Thats where this is going not to mention fake insurance scams. POP Up assitance kasks along the trail....:banana
SAR is just part and parcel of the maintenance expense of public land like access roads, rangers, etc.
It'd be like a police department sending a bill to a motorist for having to respond to a wreck...
Sadly that actually happens.
Whatever... police, fire, SAR, rangers, etc. are part of the human infrastructure necessary to carry out public business. My tax monies go to a hundred different things that I'll never use or even want but some things make sense to pay for communally. Public lands and their associated costs are one such thing.
Yes they do and do me a favor. Contribute to the ATC because half the money they get is from grants. We hikers are really are not pulling our weight on this. I saw the figures on that from BOB on another thread. Yeah just hiking thru is short of. I want to use the bus but I will only pay so much.
Nothing is free. Everything costs money. Someone has to pay. For search and rescue, there are multiple payers. In my small town it's mostly volunteer fire fighters using equipment and gear provided by taxpayers.
In areas with more dangerous mountains and wild areas, government takes a more active and expensive role, though volunteers are still an important part of the mix. In the Whites, AMC performs many small rescues. The cost is paid out those "high" fees, charged for use of the campsites, shelters and huts. I understand Baxter State Park recruits search and rescue crews from towns around the state to rotate days in the park to help in rescue emergencies. But the dollar costs are paid by Gov. Baxter's legacy which along with user fees pays for all the costs of maintaining the park.
But basically, government pays for search and rescue. Just as it pays for all the other services that people ask for. It's not easy to get government to pay for services. It typically takes months, or years, of arguing and petitioning to get a new program approved.
Hikers like free rescue. Others like other aspects of government. Every program has its advocates.
Is there some system for that, hobbs, with the NPS? Can you buy insurance? Is there some vetting system? (What is your experience? What is your gear? Trip plan? Provisioning? Bail outs?) I'm curious about this.
I think part of why people hike is the freedom of the experience and the interaction with wilderness. Inherent in that is some risk - easy to step on a poisonous snake unawares, not hard to find oneself on the wrong end of a rockslide, or a tree falling on one's campsite, even with careful planning, much less to get caught in a fast-arising thunderstorm or snow storm in some locales.
Now driver your just cuttin and pastin.:rolleyes: I just said it's been instituted since the 80's in National Park Service. No I dont have any offiliation with them. Yes I am a cllimber besides being a backpacker. Also I had a friend a well known Moutaineer and 2 other climbers get stranded on Mt Hood 2005. He died. So where this comes from is haveing friends who are backpackers and climbers both know the risks. haveing a proper plan like your saying. I agree with that. I also agree their are thunderheads who should be penalized in the form of a fine to wake them up for stupidity. My friend lost his life because they didnt want to take the 40 mins at the Ranger station to get an ava beacon. They had cells. They couldn't pin his location do to weather. So yes they were dumb! Who won on that Mountain that day? I think I would rather a thunderhead get a fine than have a stiff. :sun But you have good points as well:D
If there is going to be a charge for backcountry rescue, I would like to see it applied regardless of the government's assignment of culpability.
That's where this is headed in any event.
On 60 Minutes a few weeks ago they had a piece profiling New York City's plan to charge drivers for emergency response at a rate beginning around $400 per call, and headed up from there if there were injuries. I seem to recall they were charging some $100+ amount for brooms to sweep up glass.
No matter how or why a person gets in an accident they will be charged. Simple "fee for service".
I can understand "fee for service".
I can't understand our government routinely deciding when and where they will give its law abiding citizens a free rescue and when they won't. And that holds true whether in the woods, on a rock face, or a couple miles offshore.
That said, I still think it would be better if these costs were shouldered by the entire community through broad-based taxes. That just seem better. I'd say the same for libraries, city parks, trails and a host of other things that are used by only some of us, some of the time. All these things elevate our society, I think.
Accidents happen.......
Broken bones, sprains, heart attacks ect happen.
I have an issue with someone climbing a mountain in winter and then expecting a rescue. as a tax payer I have issue with the Coast guard flying around in helicopters and planes looking for a wayward sail boat to the the tune of several million dollars.
How much did the rescue of that girl who had a wave trash her boat in Antarctica cost???? Clearly she needs to pay the austrialian goverment for their cost.
Summer day guy falls and breaks a leg on the trail some where, no he shouldn't pay. Rescue people in the Whites in the dead of winter, your gonna pay. in my book the line is pretty clear. Just like all of rescues in the Grand Canyon, your gonna pay. There are TONS of warning signs.
May be we should change the t shirt from"Stupid hurts" to "Stupid can Kill you".
to draw the line on who pays or not we can have 6 week trials with professional witnesses on both sides, a new windfall for the lawyers
seriously, like kayak karl says is there any reason to debate this - have AT hikers had to pay?
Out west climbing clubs have insurance that is included with membership, if a true need arose this could be done by alhda as the model/data for the insur companies already exists, this could be a way to increase membership at least for the nervous types
If I REALLY had to be rescued I'd be happy to pay for it whether it was because I was being stupid or something beyond my control.
If I REALLY had to be rescued I'd be happy to pay for it whether it was because I was being stupid or something beyond my control.
Thaty's the spirit. All who use the outdoors should feel this way.
Awol1970
12-29-2010, 11:06
Accidents happen.......
Broken bones, sprains, heart attacks ect happen.
I have an issue with someone climbing a mountain in winter and then expecting a rescue. as a tax payer I have issue with the Coast guard flying around in helicopters and planes looking for a wayward sail boat to the the tune of several million dollars.
How much did the rescue of that girl who had a wave trash her boat in Antarctica cost???? Clearly she needs to pay the austrialian goverment for their cost.
Summer day guy falls and breaks a leg on the trail some where, no he shouldn't pay. Rescue people in the Whites in the dead of winter, your gonna pay. in my book the line is pretty clear. Just like all of rescues in the Grand Canyon, your gonna pay. There are TONS of warning signs.
May be we should change the t shirt from"Stupid hurts" to "Stupid can Kill you".
What is the difference between a hiker accidently breaking his leg and deserving a free rescue and an accidental fire on a F/V in the Bering Sea? Granted the rescue of the hiker may only cost in the range of hundreds of dollars and the Coast Guard involvement of the sea rescue could exceed hundreds of thousands but the persons in both instances need and deserve rescue due to circumstances out of their control. Should the people snatched off their roof following Katrina be charged simply because they were stupid enough to live 10' below sea level?
4eyedbuzzard
12-29-2010, 11:30
What is the difference between a hiker accidently breaking his leg and deserving a free rescue and an accidental fire on a F/V in the Bering Sea? Granted the rescue of the hiker may only cost in the range of hundreds of dollars and the Coast Guard involvement of the sea rescue could exceed hundreds of thousands but the persons in both instances need and deserve rescue due to circumstances out of their control. Should the people snatched off their roof following Katrina be charged simply because they were stupid enough to live 10' below sea level?
The Coast Guard does issue fines and pursues collections for ship / boat rescues when there is negligence involved. Regarding fishing vessels, there is also the difference of supporting commercial activities for which permits are issued and taxes collected. As to rescuing people from homes built where a government has approved construction, issued permits, and collected taxes, the people aren't necessarily displaying negligent or reckless behavior. Sure, some who stayed were arrogant, but many were just the poorest and most ignorant of our citizens. Regardless, a hiker going off into what should be known conditions without proper gear isn't a realistic comparison.
Rain Man
12-29-2010, 11:49
Regarding fishing vessels, there is also the difference of supporting commercial activities for which permits are issued and taxes collected.
Right you are. Government should not be in the business of guaranteeing private profit for commercial entities while socializing costs and losses. A business should pay its own way and not have us eat its costs. Now, if it happens to a private citizen reasonably pursuing recreational activities, that's exactly where "government" should step in.
On 60 Minutes a few weeks ago they had a piece profiling New York City's plan to charge drivers for emergency response at a rate beginning around $400 per call, and headed up from there if there were injuries. I seem to recall they were charging some $100+ amount for brooms to sweep up glass.
No matter how or why a person gets in an accident they will be charged. Simple "fee for service".
Actually, that's simply a tax. Calling something a "fee" instead of a "tax" doesn't change that fact that its government collecting money from citizens to cover the cost or providing services to citizens. It's a semantic word game. Allows politicians to claim they are "lowering taxes" when in fact they are collecting just as much as before and maybe more.
Rain Man
.
4eyedbuzzard
12-29-2010, 12:07
I should clarify. The CG doesn't directly charge for S&R (it can't by law), but it will issues fines for violations found pursuant to a rescue.
Rain Man,
Part of the reason for government as I remember is to "establish commerce" - I think there's even a line in the Declaration to that effect. Gov also exercises its power over navigable waters under the Constitution, so there is plenty of reason that that they are involved in both regulation and S&R. S&R isn't a method of guarantying profits, rather its purpose is to save lives, and in the case fishing vessels, usually of working stiffs on a boat.
kayak karl
12-29-2010, 12:33
Should the people snatched off their roof following Katrina be charged simply because they were stupid enough to live 10' below sea level?
that is one of the most ignorant comments i have read. you should edit that.
mweinstone
12-29-2010, 12:41
resquers need money. folks in trouble need resquers.resquers need everyones help paying bills.everyone needs resquers to have everything they need.everyone is a resquer. everyone may need resque sometime.some people have nothing to give resquers.everyone needs to give with everyone in mind. everyone needs to do everything with everyone in mind.
What is the difference between a hiker accidently breaking his leg and deserving a free rescue and an accidental fire on a F/V in the Bering Sea? Granted the rescue of the hiker may only cost in the range of hundreds of dollars and the Coast Guard involvement of the sea rescue could exceed hundreds of thousands but the persons in both instances need and deserve rescue due to circumstances out of their control. Should the people snatched off their roof following Katrina be charged simply because they were stupid enough to live 10' below sea level?
Very astute commentary.
And who makes the decision about when people cross the line and should be charged?
Do we want firefighters to be denied their disability pensions (charged) simply because obesity may have been a primary factor to heart disease or an injured back?
Do we want motocross participants and competitors in gymnastics to be charged for rescue service because their passion is more risky than the chess club?
How about charging octogenarians for rescue in the backcountry simply because everyone knows old people are safe on the couch?
Or someone who has the audacity to hike alone!