Too bad more resorts, gov's etc do not take this same initiative...


Forced to conduct risky rescue missions, many private resorts make thrill-seekers pay for breaking the rules

CARLY WEEKS
From Friday's Globe and Mail
December 14, 2007 at 9:44 AM EST

At the Sun Peaks Resort near Kamloops, B.C., guests are urged to relax and hit the slopes.

But for those thrill-seekers who decide to challenge the rules of the mountain and embark on an out-of-bounds skiing adventure, the resort has one message: Enter at your own risk - or you may take a financial hit.

Two Vancouver teenagers learned that lesson the hard way last week after they decided to ski out of bounds and got lost overnight. They have been told they might have to pay up to $15,000 for the rescue

Full article here.

I am familiar with a similar situation in Ontario, where people who are careless with fire that results in a forest fire, are often billed the entire suppression costs (often in the millions $).

Mike

This sounds like a means to get people to actually think before they leap.

The USCG started doing something like this years ago when shrimpers would fish until they ran out of fuel AND then they would call for rescue. That practice quickly came to a halt after they sttarted getting billed for the "rescues".

While a good idea in theory, I wonder if there could be legal issues of being forced to pay for a rescue that you did not ask for. I wonder if there should be (or is) some sort of waiver form that says “Yes, I authorize rescue efforts” or “No, leave my dumb butt out there (with the appropriate release of liability legalese included)”.

$15,000?

That was a charge for how many hours of effort to find the skiers?

What would a multi-day search cost?

While I understand the idea behind recouping some of the expenses of a rescue from the person that initiated it, I'm going to go ahead and wave my right (want, need, expectation?) of a rescue.

I'll save myself, or die trying.

On the bright side, if this becomes common practice throughout the country I'll be saving money by not having to buy a PLB. Then again, if those skiers had one, the cost might not have been near what it was.

Here is what our local SAR newletter has to say about billing for
rescues-

"Overheard

I recently had the great pleasure to be a fly on the wall and overheard two people conversing about the cost of search and rescue operations and the dilemma of who should bear the financial burden of finding lost victims. This is one thorny conundrum and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to these guys debate the issue. There are no two ways about it, search and rescue operations can become incredibly costly in an incredibly short amount of time. Hourly rates for helicopters (admittedly one of the greatest SAR assets), for instance, can easily be a thousand dollars or more. In Denali National Park annual charges for the high altitude LAMA helicopter routinely exceed $100,000. (My favorite Denali story was a few years back when a group of climbers had to be plucked off the mountain and then demanded that the helicopter go back up to retrieve their really expensive gear!) Epic rescues on Denali are all too often ‘regular’ events during the climbing season and people often argue that climbers are lulled into a false sense of security knowing that search and rescue personnel are standing by. Even non-high risk park or wilderness visitors can fall prey to this mentality because of the illusion that there is a safety net built into a walk in the woods. “Hey, that’s what the ski patrol is for, right? They already bombed the high traverse, there’s no way it is going to slide…” Not only is the false sense of security built in but the price tag is suspiciously absent. Afterall it is the ski patrol’s job to keep the mountain safe. That is why park rangers go on patrol. If something goes wrong, someone will come and help. And someone will pay for it because that is their responsibility. Or is it? Who is ultimately responsible for the cost? The National Park Service retains the right to charge individuals if they can prove that the actions of the individuals created a hazard. Indeed, read the signs at many ski area boundaries, “…duck the ropes and you may be charged for the rescue…” As we know all too well that is not much of a deterrent and it is a flawed system at best, “….I didn’t see the sign….the wind blew the fence down…” It’s got litigation written all over it. Others argue for an up-front fee system where rescue monies are built into the price of admission. That too is set up for failure because it is inequitable (do bird watchers pay the same as base jumpers?) and implies a certain guarantee that there will in fact be a rescue and care will be provided. Well it may or may not depending on when and if the victim can be found and then treated. Again, it reeks of litigation. In 1999 the National Association for Search and Rescue (NSAR) drafted a National Search and Rescue Plan and addressed the cost issue directly: “The participants agree that SAR services that they provide to persons in danger or distress will be without subsequent cost-recovery from the person(s) assisted.” The caveat here is that the ‘participants’ were federal agencies e.g. department of defense, FCC, NASA, etc. The National Park Service was clearly not a participant, nor were privately owned ski areas who retain the right (though exercising it is another story) to charge for rescue operations. So where does TNSAR fit in? Good question, easy answer; we don’t fit in. Though many of us have opinions, some stronger than others, about whether or not people should be charged for making our beepers sound off in the middle of the night and in the middle of a horrendous snow storm, we are not a fee for service type of organization. That is not the universe that we occupy. Lest we forget, TNSAR’s mission is to conduct fast and safe rescues, and to help educate the public on winter safety. Simple, straightforward, I like it! I think I’ll go volunteer. Oh yes, not to forget. We are an all-volunteer organization. Like many, if not all, SAR outfits, we do this because we like it not because it puts gas in our Hummers. Hard to believe at times, but it’s true. Don’t give me a title, an orange reflective coat, a badge, or an invoice. That’s not what I signed up for. I signed up because I wanted to help, I wanted to learn, and I wanted to be part of a community organization whose purpose was to assist others in need and to teach kids how to live safely in the woods. What did you sign up for? And don’t give me that crap about free beer…."

Late night thoughts listening to
December rain on my roof…
----B. Wright

Taken from the latest newsletter at
http://www.tahoenordicsar.com/

When I worked for the US Forest Service in the White Mountains of NH during the 70's and 80's I went on a number of rescues. Sad to say, IMHO, many of the local entities such as Fish and Game, US Forest Service, Appalachian Mountain Club, and a host of others treated it as a lark. They would drop everying and drive to the location in droves 'cause rescues are fun and work isn't.

Plus you get overtime.

To just take an injured hiker down a couple miles of trail about 50+ people from various agencies would show up, most milling about with no clear objective, some jockeying for position in order to have the honors of carrying the litter the last few feet so that the news photographers would get a picture of their "heroic" efforts in saving a mountaineer.

If I were that "mountaineer" I'd be mighty angry footing a huge unecessarily inflated bill when it was my tax dollars that funded these jobs in the first place.

Think of it this way - if you were injured at home and 27 ambulances showed up would you be willing to pay for all of them when only one was necessary?

I think there is a very critical peice that a lot of people missed:



And I have no problem with this. These pin heads decided to look for excitement. Now they've got it. I would (reluctantly) say swallow the cost if it was on PUBLIC property. On private land, there is a very different set of rules. When they paid for their lift ticket, they agree to follow a set of rules and codes of conduct in exchange for permission to use the land and assets of a private company.

Now, if someone really does get lost or really does get hurt accidently, sure, that is why the ski company has insurance. But this kinds of bozos... no, they get to pay.

I don't know about Canada (where the original article was from), but in the US I think most ski slopes are on public land. The forest service leases it to the ski companies I believe.

The problem (IMHO) is - how do you charge the idiots who basically brought it on themselves, but give the responsible people who happened to have an accident a break on the cost?

When I go hiking it's generally on public land, on established trails, with at least one other person. I leave detailed maps of where I'm going at home. The trails I intend to take are highlighted and areas where we may deviate slightly (like walking around a destination lake where there's no trail) are cross-hatch highlighted as an area we could possibly be in. And "will never go past" boundaries are marked (often times these are the ridges that define a mountain drainage). I take all kinds of self-help gear (much learned from this site!), and leave a gear list of what I'm carrying at home. Every year I buy a fishing license even though I rarely fish, because some of that money goes to SAR activities here in Colorado.

So if I fell and broke my ankle I might need some help getting out. My wife would contact the authorities based on the plans I left her. I would be willing to pay the SAR folks a reasonable amount for their work in helping me if they asked for payment. I would look at how much payment they were requesting vs. the amount of work the rescue actually required. If the effort they put out was way out of line with what could have reasonably be predicted as needed, I would hesitate at paying some outrageous sum. $15,000 may be outrageous for some situations, but be a great bargain for others. If it took eight guys 4 hours to hike up and haul me down a maintained trail in a stretcher, then that might be worth several thousand dollars on top of the SAR money that comes from my fishing license. But $15,000 for that effort would sound a little steep. If they spend the entire night out looking and had to put their lives at risk to help me, $15,000 sounds really cheap to me. The total bill should depend on if the SAR folks were already funded for the effort by other means (e.g., my fishing license fees - that's like a mini insurance policy).

If I knowingly broke the rules - skied out of bounds, etc. - then I'd expect to pay the real cost of my rescue. I wouldn't put myself into a stupid situation like that in the first place, but others obviously do.

The $15,000 bill is probably to cover the costs of deploying the chopper for such a long time. Typically, ground SAR teams don't require any compensation for their hard work.

Some insurance companies will cover a portion of the costs of a helicopter evacuation, as if it was a typical ambulance trip. However they usually don't cover 100%, more like 70%.