Now that's just funny as hell.
Thanks!

I simply don't buy any of the "if I use safety gear then I'll put things to the edge and/or be willing to do something stupid just because I know I can" thing.

That's ...

like saying I'm willing to crash my truck because I have insurance or because I wear a seat belt.

like driving my ATV recklessly just because I'm wearing a helmet.

like pointing my shotgun at my children because it has a safety switch.

I'd rather see people carry PLB's and be saved than not.

Its not much different with the police and fire departments... at least from my viewpoint. They spend most of the time dealing with losers, idiots, and goofballs (maybe less so for the fire dept), but I am happy to pay my taxes knowing that they will be there on the very rare occasion when I need them.

"...I think the SPOT service should be paying for a lot of the rescue costs in cases of abuse."

The problem is not with the unit or the manufacturer, it's with the OPERATOR.

Sue Glock if you shoot yourself in the foot?

Sue Craftsman if you drill a hole in your hand?

Sue Ford for crashing when you fall asleep at the wheel?

How about we put the blame where it belongs? Maybe for the sheer novelty of it.

What about elevating the charge for responses to nonsense calls every time someone calls? Get the IDs of all involved so they don't pass the blame around.

Sue

Somewhere I remember reading something written by a paramedic, along the lines of 'the patient that you have to watch is the one that is apologizing for calling you out.' I personally have a retired friend who didn't call 911 when she had chest pains because she didn't want to 'make a fuss'.

There will always be people that abuse the system, either out of ignorance or some sort of sense of entitlement; but there will also always be those who are too scared, timed or self-deprecating to call for help when they need it. Laws aren't going to fix that. Giving the professionals and volunteers out in the field some flexibility in how the respond can help.

Or in short: I think it's worth saving 10 idiots from their own lack of planning as long as we save the one sweet old lady, too.

Tom, you missed the point.

It's not about who you save, it's about holding people accountable. I don't think you can equate someone stuck on a hillside with a daypack and a sore back seeking a quick fix to someone in cardiac distress, and they don't have to be treated the same either.

Regardless of the circumstance, though, I believe everyone should be accountable for their own welfare, at least to the extent that their situation at any given time is a personal circumstance, and not the result of some common need, as with a natural disaster for instance. Everyone should make provisions to pay their own way through life, right up to the end. To the extent they can't, I believe they have failed a fundamental requirement for being here.

I say go after the people with the money in their pockets. SPOT is providing a service and are charging for it. They are piggy backing their service on what are free services and they are charging insurance premiums to cover the recovery costs.
In effect the people who use and abuse the SPOT system have already paid for the privilege of hitting that button for whatever reason they choose when they paid the insurance premium and the other SPOT subscription fees.

If the insurers were on the hook they would figure out some way to collect or refuse payments for frivolous use or for recklessness.

If you go after the hikers you will usually end up trying to collect from pockets that only have lint in them.

Why should the public purse be expected to underwrite a private business venture?

Read the post and think before misinterpreting what was said and starting to scream about personal responsibility.

We are already paying for rescuing the idiots and unfortunately in the real world there are plenty of idiots.
It is also an unfortunate condition that it is cheaper to have a SAR system working than it is to simply let the morons become Darwin Award winners.
It is also unfortunate that a private corporation is using a public service for private profit and failing to compensate the actual service providers.

Personal resposibility?
Lets talk about the real world with real humans in it instead of Utopian fantasies.

Kind of difficult to interpret your assertion other than an abandonment of personal responsibility. Punishing a manufacturer for the poor judgment and lack of education of a few paints with way too broad a brush for my taste. Is it too much to assume that people will use an emergency communication device only for an emergency? I think not.

Yes, there will be people that call 911 when McDonalds runs out of Chicken McNuggets. Don't laugh, it really happened about three months ago. Under your policy, we should sue the manufacturer of the cell phone because they failed to warn the user that they might be arrested for making stupid police report using the cell phone.

When the ravenous class action attorneys get involved, the result will likely be bankruptcy and the loss of a product that would otherwise provide low-cost protection and save lives. I say that even though I prefer ARC's MicroFix and and do not own a SPOT.

People need to understand that their actions have consequences. Focusing on the "deep pocket" lets them off the hook and does nothing more than punish the public at large. YMMV.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to mention that the offenders in the most egregious case, the Grand Canyon case, were indeed cited, and, more than likely, will pay a significant fine. The NPS has the ability to do this, and it is standard practice for similar cases, and has been doing so for many years. I doubt that the NPS is unique in this regard.

Some of the cases cited in the original article are marginal calls - there isn't enough information provided to know for certain (how unusual!). Marginal callouts have been around since Noah floated his ark. About one-third of the callouts I participated in were "unnecessay" in retrospect, in that the situation would have come to a satisfactory conclusion without SAR intervention. The individuals were typically overdue, hungry, and tired, but moving along steadily.

Another approach, and one compatible with ETS and its objectives, is user education. Wouldn't it be useful if every unit had a little hangtag with a brief summary of preparedness principles and a discussion of when NOT to use the gadget?

Our unit walked both sides of the street, responding aggressively to situations, but also mounting public education campaigns and demonstrations. I know of several situations where the education paid off. This is unglamorous side of SAR, because it doesn't generate headlines, but it does save time, lives, and money.

Ohhhh, I like that. Kind of like a tag version of Doug's how-to in his kits.

Maybe with all that free time of his (ha!) Doug could write up a water resistant tag (oh, firestarter material!) that a manufacturer could voluntarily hang on SPOTs and PLBs that would give a list of basic recommended preventative measures, survival gear, survival methods(short!), methods for getting found, and a reminder that the devices are only to be used when in real serious danger of loss of life. They might even mention Doug's PSP kit.

I'm not feeling overly creative this afternoon (sigh), but can anyone give Doug a huge head start?