View Full Version : Park Service Responsibility
hikerjohnd
12-23-2004, 11:39
I have been reading the responses to the topic about David's need for rescue in the Smokies. I recently (within the last year) read an article about the cost of rescue operations and who picks up the tab. I haven't formed an opinion, but think Bill Bryson makes a good point when he said something like "technology is drawing people into the wilderness who shouldn't be there in the first place" (and I am not commenting on David here - he was just the inspiration for this post). So my question is, who should be responsible for people who venture into the wilderness, and, should the need arise, who shoulders the cost of a rescue operation? Why? Thanks for the opinions! :-?
Brushy Sage
12-23-2004, 12:08
National Park Service, which means we all pay.
Kerosene
12-23-2004, 12:15
Yes, the NPS pays with our tax dollars, but I see no reason why the person being rescued shouldn't absorb the charge (or acquire insurance to avoid excessive costs).
grrickar
12-23-2004, 12:17
Sort of like Fire, EMS and Police services I suppose - we pay taxes which go to these agencies, which in turn provide services. Do the local Fire Departments not get involved in these search and rescue cases? Most departments, even in rural areas have all volunteer Fire Departments that respond to emergency calls such as this. I'm not sure if the Park Service is the only party involved in these rescues.
Brushy Sage
12-23-2004, 12:28
Right, along different parts of the AT various agencies get involved in rescues. Some of them use trained volunteers. So, park service, forest service, sheriff's departments, volunteer rescue squads, and "others" is a more appropriate answer generally.
BlackCloud
12-23-2004, 13:41
I support New Hampshire's "new" law of allowing the state to charge evacuees for costs incurred in rescue operations when the rescue is necessitated by the rescuee's negligence.
I only wish that they'd enforce it.....:rolleyes:
hikerjohnd
12-23-2004, 15:10
I support New Hampshire's "new" law of allowing the state to charge evacuees for costs incurred in rescue operations when the rescue is necessitated by the rescuee's negligence.
I only wish that they'd enforce it.....:rolleyes:
Perhaps it was the New Hapshire article I was reading about... Do we charge people for rescue efforts? As I recall, the buzz here became 'what about those who can not afford it?' How would/could that be managed?
Some rescues are similar to ambulance rides. I am sorry if I have a heart attack where it is hard to get me to medical treatment, but my health insurance should cover the cost. My co-pay for ambulance service would certainly discourage abuse.
A more difficult issue is when people need to be rescued to prevent a medical emergency.
Jack Tarlin
12-23-2004, 16:16
Re. rescue: To hell with those "who can't afford it." If they can afford to buy recreational hiking gear, and can afford to take vacations, and can afford a tank of gas, then I guess they can afford to be responsible for their own mistakes.
If a person's rescue is deemed unnecessary or is caused due to stupidity or negligence, then I have no problem at all with billing them for the cost of the rescue.
And as to the comment that the Park Service should pay for this since we all pay taxes.....well, first off, what with their budget cuts over the past few years, they don't have any extra money to pay for ANYTHING, never mind the expense of rescuing ill-prepared idiots. And merely because you're entitled, as a taxpayer, to USE public land, this doesn't give you the inherent right to act like a fool once you get there.
We live in a society where people are loathe to take any responsibility for their own actions. And the woods are no different. But if a person gets in trouble out there due to negligence, thoughtlessness, and stupidity, then it's only fair that these folks pay for their carelessness.
I think the New Hampshire law is GREAT; I think it needs to be enforced more often; I think it should be imitated elsewhere.
Spirit Walker
12-23-2004, 16:47
Colorado for years has had an inexpensive (used to be $1) backcountry insurance that you could buy at outdoor stores. If you needed rescue and had the insurance, then you were covered. If not, then you'd pay. Sounded like a good idea to me, though when we were there we forgot to get it.
One consideration - what about people who don't need rescue, but someone outside gets worried because they are late and calls in S&R? Should they be charged? Twice I've been in situations where I did some dangerous bushwhacking at night because I was afraid that S&R would be called. Instead of staying put and waiting until morning, I kept going, just to avoid the embarrasment of having to explain to the S&R folks that I was fine but my mother was a worrier. If people know that they will have to pay for S&R they may take risks to avoid that instead of waiting until the situation is safer. I'm thinking of the guy in the Sierras this fall who walked out and ran into the S&R group that had been looking for him. He was safely ensconced in his tent for a couple of days, but his family got scared and called out the mounties. Should he pay? Wouldn't families be likely to wait longer, perhaps too long, rather than risk paying for a rescue that might not be necessary?
Bloodroot
12-23-2004, 17:27
Re. rescue: To hell with those "who can't afford it." If they can afford to buy recreational hiking gear, and can afford to take vacations, and can afford a tank of gas, then I guess they can afford to be responsible for their own mistakes.
If a person's rescue is deemed unnecessary or is caused due to stupidity or negligence, then I have no problem at all with billing them for the cost of the rescue.
And as to the comment that the Park Service should pay for this since we all pay taxes.....well, first off, what with their budget cuts over the past few years, they don't have any extra money to pay for ANYTHING, never mind the expense of rescuing ill-prepared idiots. And merely because you're entitled, as a taxpayer, to USE public land, this doesn't give you the inherent right to act like a fool once you get there.
We live in a society where people are loathe to take any responsibility for their own actions. And the woods are no different. But if a person gets in trouble out there due to negligence, thoughtlessness, and stupidity, then it's only fair that these folks pay for their carelessness.
I think the New Hampshire law is GREAT; I think it needs to be enforced more often; I think it should be imitated elsewhere.
Point taken. I'm sure paying the bill would not be an issue coming from me if S&R saved my arse. But like everything else there is grey area here on what is considered stupid, negligent, unthoughtful hiking......right? Is a person considered careless if they are ill-prepared for a hike and develop hypothermia or someone who is prepared and develops hypothermia from falling in a creek? Or both?
Colorado for years has had an inexpensive (used to be $1) backcountry insurance that you could buy at outdoor stores. If you needed rescue and had the insurance, then you were covered. If not, then you'd pay. Sounded like a good idea to me, though when we were there we forgot to get it.
Actually, that is a common misconception.
The way the COSAR card works (COlorado Search and Rescue) is that you are essentially paying into a pool to help subsidize SaR. The counties that typically get the most SaR calls also happen to be among the least affluent. By buying a COSAR card, you help defray the cost of these SaR operations. Any funds leftover are used to pay for training the SaR teams. Most of these teams are volunteer. AFAIK, you will not be charged for rescue wether you have the card or not. You MAY be charged for helicopter use if is for medical evac (as opposed to searching). Ambulance transport may be charged to you as well.
Often times the local National Guard will lead the helicopter portion of the SaR. They will often not charge you for evac if it is medical emergency that was not the fault of the person being evacutated. They log the evac as part of their mandatory training. This actually happened to a friend of mine who had to be helicopter evaced from a backcountry hut ~3 yrs ago.
Two good friends of mine volunteer for Rocky Mountain Rescue and gave the low-down on this program fairly recently.
Two good links:
http://www.dola.state.co.us/lgs/fa/sar/SARcard.htm
http://www.coloradotrail.org/Cosar.htm
Peter Mossberg
12-23-2004, 21:26
Yup,
New Hampshire has a law (about 10 years old) where if you need to be rescued, and you are negligent, you have to pay.
In practice, this law has only been implemented a few times. If you have a legitimate accident or sickness, you do not have to pay for the rescue.
A.T. Trail Club members I know, myself being one, have shown interest in rescue operations. However, we found that the different gov. agencies are reluctant to let non-pros get involved with any type rescue. You basically have to become an "EMS certified mountain climber scuba diver helicopter pilot with experience in psychiatry", as a minimum.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
rainmaker
12-23-2004, 23:03
During the last ten years, I have noticed an increase in the number of winter backpackers which I have attributed to the availability of affordable, quality equipment. Most make it into and out of the backcountry with no problems , usually due to good fortune than to good sence. Some do not and have to be rescued or carried out . I tend to feel that we be responsible and accountable for our actions. This would include paying for our rescue or at least for insurance.
On the other hand , during that same ten year period , tens of thousands of people have moved to the coastal regions of the south and built homes in areas suseptible to hurricanes and flooding. We the people subsidize their unwise decisions by underwriting the cost of flood insurance without which they would not be able to obtain financing.
It seems that backcountry rescue may be expensive per individual, but just warm spit in the bucket when compared to all the many ways we the people pay for unwise , if not downright risky decisions.
grrickar
12-23-2004, 23:04
The problem with setting up fees to charge people who were negligent is how they would determine whether or not they were. Now if a guy left out without shelter, sleeping bag or cold weather gear in the middle of winter it is pretty clear they were negligent, but what if temps were expected to be above freezing and then the region got hit with a winter storm, and caught the hiker without proper clothing and sleeping bag? In order to charge someone with negligence wouldn't the park service (or someone) have to define what the minimum required gear will be for given situations? I'm not sure anyone would be receptive to being told what they must carry.
I'm not an ultralighter nor will I ever be, for the reason that if I get hurt I want more than a few feet of duct tape and some moleskin to work with. Same goes for a tent and sleeping bag - I will never hike without carrying both, even if there are shelters available. I also carry a space blanket and those fire starter sticks in case I need to get a fire started and everything is wet. I also consider the possibility that I might run across another person who might be in need of assistance. If that means an extra pound or two in my pack to carry those items, so be it.
With the number of hikers on the AT, I'm sure there are cases where one hiker has rescued another. Of course those stories would likely not make headlines.
No one is responsible for rescuing people in the wilderness. It's just something that we collectively as a society do. Most rescues -- in northern New England anyway -- are done by law enforcement people with the help of volunteers.
The National Park Service in Maine is never involved, on or off the trail. Though the park service owns the narrow corridor that forms the trail through Maine, it has no paid employes in Maine to conduct rescues.
Why do volunteers give of their time to rescue people? You'll have to ask them. But a lot of us do volunteer things. I build trails, maintain trails, contribute money to buy land for trails. Why? It feels good to have done so. I suspect fire department volunteers and rescue volunteers feel the same way. It feels nice to have done something good for others.
I'm not much good any more as a rescuer. I struggle to get myself in and out of the woods with the gear needed to minimize the need for rescue.
But I do work almost full time to protect trails and the land needed to keep trails wild. I give up quite a few luxury things and even a few Friday night pizzas. But it truly is a nice feeling to realize that a few things one has worked for will remain long after we leave this earthy realm.
You can experience such feelings also. Just open:
www.matlt.org
and do whatever your conscience thinks wise.
Weary
Not long ago a backpacker wearing running shoes (very much less Tevas) who broke his ankle would have been considered negligent and indeed stupid.
I suspect that there are no small number of people who think that anyone who has had a heart attack and goes into the backcountry is being thoughtless.
I'm just not so sure we want to have the govenment making thse judgements, even if places like NH are doing a good job with it now. The way I see it, when the fire department starts billing drunk drivers fior the gas used in the jaws of life, I'll be ready to support charging for backcountry rescues.
That said, if the person being rescued has borken any laws or regulations, I'd support aggressive criminal and civil prosecution.
Rick
I have been reading the responses to the topic about David's need for rescue in the Smokies. I recently (within the last year) read an article about the cost of rescue operations and who picks up the tab. I haven't formed an opinion, but think Bill Bryson makes a good point when he said something like "technology is drawing people into the wilderness who shouldn't be there in the first place" (and I am not commenting on David here - he was just the inspiration for this post). So my question is, who should be responsible for people who venture into the wilderness, and, should the need arise, who shoulders the cost of a rescue operation? Why? Thanks for the opinions! :-?
WOW! Quoting BILL BRYSON...i think we've hit an ALL TIME LOW!
hehehehehe! :D
The National Park Service in Maine is never involved, on or off the trail. Though the park service owns the narrow corridor that forms the trail through Maine, it has no paid employes in Maine to conduct rescues.
Yes, but bear in mind that GSMNP is a VERY different story.
There are two reasons (IMO) why the NPS will be involved in most any rescue.
First and foremost, it is their job, and they are dedicated at what they do.
Secondly, the NPS is subjected the the politics of the day. If a rescue attempt was not attemppted, and thee hiker dies, once their Congressman gets word, it could be problematic for the agency.
There is a lesson to be learned in all of this. Be prepared for the worst while hiking - especially when hiking in the winter. Self sufficiency is the rule.
Little Bear (who left his headlamp & spoon at home by mistake on his last hike)
from what i have read,david dinnwiddie has spent his share of time assisting in search and rescue missions on trapped and lost hikers.neo:sun
So, back to the question:
Who gets to decide who has been negligent, and who is simply a victim of circumstances? Are there any hard and fast guidelines, or is it all subjective? And assuming there aren't any hard and fast rules determining who gets charged, how enforceable is the bill anyway? To what lengths may a governmental agency go to collect the debt?
We can all imagine and describe the most extreme examples of real "negligence," but in the real world there are a lot more gray areas than the kind of black-and-white examples we could come up with here.
Seems like we need an attorney with practical experience in this area of law to chime in here.
Jack Tarlin
12-25-2004, 15:46
Skyline:
In New Hampshire, the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, and it's made by the Search and Rescue people involved, who are usually connected to the Fish and Game Department. These folks are experts, with years of experience. If they decide that an expensive or dangerous rescue operation had to be launched due to somebody's negligence, this is a decision that is not made lightly, and it's one made by folks whose experience puts them in an excellent position to decide.
As to how enforceable this is, it's as enforceable as any other law; i.e., the decision to compel someone to pay for their rescue is like any other other legal action: The degree to which the law is enforced depends on individual circumstances, and to what degree the legal authorities wish to pursue the matter.
But make no mistake, it IS the law here in NH, and one screws up out of stupidity in this state, they do reserve the right to bill you for it.
In conjunction with the Search and Rescue legislation, which dates to 1999, the state also has an excellent education program for hikers, which would serve as model to other states. Those interested in this might wish to check out www.hikesafe.com
grrickar
12-25-2004, 15:59
I think their should be some type of education program from prospective hikers. I know there are books, clubs, websites, and groups that teach these things but I still see a lot of people making bad decisions. If people register for permits, maybe at least they are given a simple gear list as food for thought by the NPS.
Some people I saw hiking from Newfound Gap towards Charlies Bunion were obviously not well informed. One hiker had a external fram pack with so much gear bungied to it I doubt half the stuff made it to Cosby, which is where she was headed. Several others we met were carrying nothing at all, and presumably they were day 'hikers' - but no water, food or even a light jacket? Yet another chap we ran into at Icewater Springs was carrying a Army issue canvas duffle full to the top with ??? who knows... It was late in the day and I'm sure that some of them did not make it back before dark. It was threatening rain too. One group of guys were hiking in cowboy boots, and their girlfriends were in street clothes too - tank tops in October no less.
I'll admit to some stupid mistakes too. In Scouts I once hiked in leather boots that very closely resembled black leather army boots. Talk about blisters. I also went camping once during an OA ordeal, and we were affforded one 'luxury' item. I took my PVC rainsuit. It was late summer and hot as hades. I thought - why carry a sleeping bag? I used the rainsuit as a pillow as we cowboy camped. I woke up freezing. I found the rainsuit in the dark, donned it, then went back to sleep. I think I sweated out about 7 lbs that night.
Luckily my lessons were learned without any serious injury (other than perhaps my pride), but others have not been quite so lucky.
Jack,
Thanks...that was actually a better answer than I expected to get to the question. And the HikeSafe site you linked to is one that I've bookmarked and will share with others.
As you stated, the S&R folks don't make a charge of negligence lightly, so I'm guessing attempts to collect money are only made in the most extreme, no-shadow-of-a-doubt circumstances. But probably not if there is a less-than-black-&-white scenario? If so, seems fair enough. Once S&R makes such a charge, does it proceed through a court system where guilt or innocence is decided?
Jack,
Once S&R makes such a charge, does it proceed through a court system where guilt or innocence is decided?
No one under our system of justice can be levied any penalty without the possibility of the courts rendering the ultimate decision. The problem with the system is that sometimes the cost of appealing exceeds the cost of paying the penalty. But that's the nature of the beast.
It's the possibility of appeal and the ability to challenge the facts and the law that limits the injustices we all from time to time experience.
Weary
minnesotasmith
12-25-2004, 22:22
I've heard that one extremely common cause of unprepared people in the outdoors calling for help unneccessarily is inexperienced people hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, then not being in good enough physical condition to easily hike back up. This occurs along the lines of multiple people per day during the peak season, although I understand the Rangers will tell anyone still capable of standing on two feet to tough it and hike out, rather than using tax dollars for a free helicopter trip.
If you're not in fair shape, and intend to hike to the bottom of the GC, rent one of the riding mules or you'll regret it, is the moral there.