Well, I respect your opinion but take my liberty to argue against something I disagree with

Here's some more food for thought:

* Rescuers need to practice. Picking up whatever remains of daredevils provides excellent, realistic training. (That also accounts for really expensive resources as helicopters. Most or all of the hours spent on rescue missions would otherwise be flown as traning missions. At least that's the case where I live).

* Although there are some risks inherited in rescue missions, those risks are
a) something they volunteer to expose themselves to (by choice of profession, or by active volunteering for a S&R team),
b) minimalized by a professional and highly skilled S&R leadership that WILL NOT expose their teams to neck breaking risks. In short, they know what they're doing.


In addition comes the ethical question of what is the definition of unacceptable and OK risk levels.

Although I disagree on the principle of harsh penalties for the unlucky dare devils I am not totally against the idea that the individual should pay for rescue for certain kind of activities. The most practical solution to this dilemma is to claim a guarantee (insurance or bank statement) to cover the cost of a rescue mission. This is common practice for the Govenor of Svalbard (Spitsbergen). Expeditions into far away regions will have to bring an emergency beacon and demonstrate either a bank guarantee or an insurance that will cover the cost of a helicopter rescue. The important distinction is that this is done BEFORE you start the expedition - it is not a punishment for some expedition that has some kind of trouble.