In that case there should be an itemized bill with deductions for salaries, real world experience in place of training time, etc. which would have been paid anyway.

Sounds pretty slimey to me.

I'd say that's for sure.

Personally I don't think the effort to locate Mr. Fossett should have been any more than if it had been one of us in his shoes.
I think we could all agree that the resources put forth for this SAR were far greater than "normal". However, I don't think the state of Nevada should be trying to bill someone for this unless prior agreements were made. Everyone should receive the same level of service, if you want more than normal, it's going to cost.
Just my .02 cents.

smitty

Why should taxpayers have to pay for methadone clinics for heroin addicts? I don't know, but I pay for this and I don't benefit from it. I'd rather my taxes pay for SAR activities.

But that same plumber can go to any hospital ER in America, get treated for his heart attack, take up an ICU bed for 2 days (at $3000/day), and a hospital bed for 3, and then skip out on paying anything.

Who reimburses the hospital, staff, and physicians? You realize that Medi/Medi pay something like $30 for an office visit, and only a fraction of the charges of any real health care?

At $30/patient, is it any wonder that physicians keep office visits under 10 minutes? They have hundreds of thousands in debt they need to pay off.

SAR, like EMS and health care, should be paid for. It's a service, not a "right" - at least until the laws in the US are changed.

But you shouldn't charge some people and not others. I would have no complaints about some kind of "SAR insurance". We have something like that here in Colorado. That's why I buy a fishing license every year, even though I rarely fish anymore. Part of that money goes to SAR - for me if I need it, for others if I don't.

Wow, this is the first time I've noticed a total reversal in this group (perhaps its not just the unprepared who have short memories). It seems like just a moment ago we were discussing some sort of "stupidity charge" or other surcharge for people needing rescue. While it may not be exactly the same respondents here as in other posts I find it amusing that only one or two people are now willing to come forward and say, "Yes charge the person for the cost of rescue." He didn't file a detailed flight plan (or deviated from one he did file), he had lots of gee whiz gadgets he didn't carry that might have saved his life and the time and money of the state and he (and now his widow) will by no means be beggared by having to pay for the search. If you were going to start charging people for rescue, he sounds like he'd be a prime candidate. I'm not saying its right or wrong to do so, but there seems to be a slight inconsistency. (Granted not every one responded favorably to charging for searches then either, but in general that was the way the wind blew).

He’d be a prime candidate for one reason, it’s palatable to people. There is an underlining feeling in this country to hate the rich and to want them to pay any time we can make them pay. Many people pile on to this attitude and in doing this with this guy it does in fact set a precedent for the following times and soon it will be the way it’s done for all.

Yes this family can pay for this, but in the future lower income people will not be able to. Can you right now pay the $700,000 they want to collect? I would guess not.


But sadly peoples hate for those with more money then they have will probably win this case and in the future anyone who ventures out into nature will have to wonder if they should just stay home with a remote in their hand and just watch tv because of what the government will charge them if any accident were to ever happen.

This is not a good thing.

It's not? Gee - we won't have to spend as much money maintaining the parks, or SAR crews, the animals will be left in peace in nature, and the populace will become more docile, so we can control them better. What's NOT to like? ( sarcasim off )

I also can't afford a private plane to fly off into the boonies without a flight plan (heck, I don't go for a walk in the woods without filing a flight plan with a friend). I can't afford a Breitling watch with a built in ELT I can leave on the bed side table. My friends don't own Google, so I probably won't have hundreds or thousands of people reviewing google earth imagery to try to find me. Nor do I expect the civil air patrol will muster fourteen aircraft to come find me. Over all, I doubt 50,000 people would be involved in search for me.

Is it distasteful for the Governor to send his widow a bill? Is that a double standard? Yes. But I don't find the current double standard any less distasteful either.

I think all of the citizens in the country deserve the same treatment from the government. If that means we send two dozen people to search for some guy no-one ever heard of, we send two dozen guys out to look for Brad Pitt. Or we send fourteen aircraft and thousands of searchers out to look for everyone who goes missing. Equality baby.

And I would be perfectly happy paying an insurance premium out to pay for search and rescue, especially if I was flying a small airplane or mountain climbing in winter or otherwise intentionally putting myself in extra danger.