That's good for the SAR volunteers; having a clear conscience does count for something I suppose. However, such good intentions still come at a price, which is to the taxpayer, which has nothing to do with making the SAR volunteers feel good at night. Whether the SAR volunteers are against charging or not is irrelevent, as it is not their money and they have no fidicuiary responsibility. They'd do their job whether the victim pays or the public does. This is all about accountability, and the apparent lack thereof.

Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in the purpose of SAR and others in providing the services they do. What I think is that, along with a reluctance of some foolish individuals to call in a rescue request because they didn't take proper financial precautions up front and are worried they might get nicked if they don't at least attempt a self rescue, you will have far fewer people actually going out and taking such risks without adequate insurance up front to pay for the unlikely but always possible need. Why is this concept any different than flight insurance, or driving insurance, or diving insurance?

Life is full of risks. We have a responsibility for our own welfare, and just like most other aspects of our lives, climbing a mountain ought not carry any less of a financial burden. Maybe then people like this will give it the consideration it is due. SAR was never meant to be in the business of saving people from the own foolish, reckless actions.