For those here who are willing to challenge themselves, to find the path less travelled, to push for the top in the face of adversity, I commend your spirit. It is this drive to accept challenges and push ourselves to our limits that helps define our character. All this is a worthy goal, and makes us better people for the experience, at least I feel it always has for me.

What we must bear in mind is that in the course of our endeavors to explore our surroundings and our abilities, we take risks, and however well we may think we are prepared, there is always a significant chance that our undertaking will overtake us, and we will find ourselves in need of assistance. As Jeff put it, he accepts the risks to his health and welfare, but he, like the rest of us, are not able to mitigate the risks sufficiently to discount altogether the prospect that we may need rescue. Therefore, since that is a material risk inherent in the type of activities we are now discussing, and since we've already established an official rescue operation that is compelled to try and save us in the event of some catastrophy beyond our control, our only recourse is remuneration to the public trust for the services being provided to the individual at the public expense, without public benefit.

SAR, and the various other agencies and groups tasked with rescue and/or recovery, provide each of us with what I refer to as a "Safety Net", meaning that when we get in above our heads, they are there to pull us out using means and methods we would not otherwise have individually at our disposal. The vast majority of the population do not and perhaps will not ever need assistance of this sort from these agencies and groups. Yet all are responsible for paying the costs to maintain these services in ready condition using some of the best technology and training money can buy. That a few should benefit from the efforts of many in such a way seems to me an innappropriate and irresponsible expecation. This is why the proposal that those who would make such undertakings go to the trouble and expense of "insuring" that they can in fact accept the risks of their rescue or recovery should the need arise, however slight. I would prefer that all of us be left to our own recognizance, and those who go forth as did the pioneers of old realize that their survival depends solely on themselves and what means they might furnish to that end, and not on the coerced extortion of the public at large through levies and taxes. In the course of the events of the past 50 or so years, our society has forsaken such a notion, and the result is that more and more the public trust is extorted to compensate for the shortcoming of a few unfortunate folks. I believe this is wholly contrary to the intentions of our founding fathers, but that is just my opinion, shared by a few historical figures I've cited previously, but remaining nothing more than a point to argue.

This is not to advocate that aid should not be rendered where needed and able, but that the whole intent is it should be as a basis of charity, otherwise it can only be considered an act of extortion. I should hope by now that we've made the distinction between the two quite plain over the years on this forum.

So my advice is to go forth, young man, and make a mark. Find your way, and build a character suitable to lead others to their limits. But know that the risks you take are not only yours to accept, but now also belong to the rest of us, whether we would want them or not.