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.

The trouble with idiots is that they get other people killed who are trying to help them, due to their lack of preparation and common sense. Two young children will grow up without their father because of two hikers who had to be rescued.

FRIENDS, FAMILY SAY GOODBYE TO DPS OFFICER KILLED BY HELICOPTER
06:50 PM Mountain Standard Time on Monday, October 20, 2008

MESA [AZ] -- Friends and family of DPS Officer Bruce Harrolle said their last goodbyes Monday morning.

Funeral services took place at Central Christian Church in Mesa.

The 36-year-old DPS officer and paramedic was killed during a mountain rescue in Sedona last week when the rotor blade of his helicopter hit him in the head.

Harrolle was helping a stranded hiker into the helicopter when it happened. He died instantly.

DPS Director Roger Vanderpool said Harrolle was always smiling and was a true professional.

"This man truly dedicated his life to helping, serving and protecting others and last Monday he was doing just that," Vanderpool said. "He was doing the job he loved and I'm sure he had that big smile on his face."

Gov. Janet Napolitano called Harrolle a hero.

Harrolle, who had been with DPS for nine years, leaves behind a wife and two young children.

He is the first DPS office killed in the line of duty since March 2000.

A 25-mile processional from the church to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Aviation Hangar took place after the service.
http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/mesa-local-news-102008-harrolle-funeral.12f32ca32.html


In an article from the Arizona Republic, citizen Harvey Lorentz summed it up very well:

"It is tragic that a rescuer lost his life, but the solution is for all of us to exert a little common sense when planning to embark on an escapade that has known dangers.

"People who refuse to evacuate when told that it is necessary, those who insist that they can drive through the wash, hikers who think that they are different from the others and can do the impossible, all put our dedicated rescuers in jeopardy every time they venture into one of these situations.

"Before starting a venture, look at the potential dangers and make certain you are prepared to finish in a safe manner, without needing the rescuers. Make sure you have all the necessary equipment to safely complete the mission. Don't rely on others to risk their lives to save you from your folly. Don't become the survivor that lives with the onus of contributing to another death."


So, what's the plan when an idiot calls for help and his rescuer(s) die in the attempt?

Sue

Problem is waiting longer costs even more money and increases
risk to SAR, volunteer or not. A dangerous situation
turns into an true emergency and it is not only the
bonehead that is sometimes at risk. It may be someone
else in the bonehead's party.

Heck, we take care of our senior citizens through Medicare
even if they smoke cigars.

Negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, or at the least wrongful death. I liken it to the gen manager of a chem plant in Houston who sent workers out without the proper training or PPE, resulting in their deaths. Criminal and civil penalties should apply.

Of course, the operative term you used is "had to be rescued". I don't believe anyone should be compelled to risk their health and safety in an attempt to save someone else. It is one thing to volunteer, even to get paid for that, because you can always refuse it, but does anyone really have to be rescued these days?

I nonehteless have great respect for those who go in harm's way to try and help others in need, even if the need is self-generated.

I would surely hope the DA would press charges. At least the family well ought to.

Wow. Total downer on the rescuer. Crap.

The idea of "SAR insurance" bears merit. Get you some insurance or don't call us -- unless you've got the cash yourself. Difficult to inform the public. And enforcement? Do we station rangers in the woods to "card" people?

I've often thought there should be at least charge of, say $50. It would make people think twice but not so prohibitive that it would bankrupt people or cause them not to call when really needed. It would function much as a Doctor's co-pay does with a health care plan. HMO's found that if visits were free, utilization (amount of MD visits) went through the roof but if they charged even relatively nominal sums of $10 to $20, utilization went down. People went for the slightest sniffle when free but thought twice when the had to cough up a few bucks.

Just a thought.

$50 for a weekend event might be marketable as a one time insurance cost, like buying flight insurance at the airport right before the plane takes off. I am sure some insurance company would do a statistical analysis and determine a scale for associated risk like this. In some cases, the cost would be much less, like hiking in a city park in Arizona. In other cases, it might get a bit prohibitive, like climbing Mt. McKinley (sp). They could offer discounts for purchasing a GPS, PLB, compass, and/or taking some survival related course.

Actually, the idea of regulating risk like this is revolting, but if they are going to continue using taxpayer money like they have been, and I can't imagine that they'd be able to somehow stop now, then I see no other recourse. Either individuals accept responsibility for the risks they take, or they must have the responsibility forced upon them. There has to be a measure of accountability one way or another. You can't just let people do as they please and expect others to foot the bill for it indefinitely. Sooner or later there will come a time or reckoning.

Or we can become like Finland, and each pay 75% income tax, and have the state provide us whatever THEY think we need, and also tell us what we can and can't do. That levels the playing field pretty much.

More details of how the hiker survived and was found: Yakima Herald Article

Frostbite of the butt...

He kept moving during the nights and stopped to sleep in the warmth of the day. That sounds like his version of traveling light doesn't include firemaking materials. Or nothing to burn. And nothing write with, and on, to leave a note on the trail.

Traveling light on a 12,000' mountain. Yeah.

Sue

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/climber_talks_about_surviving.html

Here is a follow-up story with an interview with Derek.

Not bad advice.