Technology makes stupidity easier, with quicker results.

There have been previous arguments on ETS on whether to charge or not charge for SAR. The main argument is that if people know they're going to be charged, they won't call for help, even when they really need it. So separate the WANT from the NEED.

How about making some rules about charging/not charging?

Will Be Charged:
* If they don't have a basic survival kit on their person (like the complacent STATE F&G dolt in the article);
* If they don't have appropriate attire with them;
* If they call and then start moving away from the area they reported they were in (except to avoid harm, such as rising water or lightning on a ridge).
* If the call is deemed frivolous by the rescuers.

Won't Be Charged:
* If they have a basic survival kit on them;
* If they are injured to the point they can't walk out themselves (no sprained thumbs, etc).
* If they are in a life-threatening situation.
* If they have appropriate overnight clothing with them.
* If they call and stay put (with above exceptions).

If the call is frivolous, they need to hand-write their agreement -- not just sign -- to pay (so they can't say they 'didn't know what they were signing') before they board the rescue craft, and if they refuse, leave them there. The word will get out.

And if the call was bogus from the start and they're identified, NAIL THEM! Authorities should refuse all calls from 'UNKNOWN CALLERS'. Without ID, there will be no attempt at rescue.

The problem is that the Doers make it too easy for the Users, and the Users multiply like rats. If we keep doing what we're doing, we're going to keep getting what we're getting.

Sue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14735364

Technology does make it extremely easy to navigate and get to a mental note of the landscape using Google Earth. Even GPS waypoint routes can be transferred to GPS as someone has already done the hard work.

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lochlomond/ben-lomond.shtml#profile

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lochlomond/profiles/ben-lomond.kmz

The wooded area where the walkers were rescued from would be about 500-600m from the path running along side Loch Lomond and another 500-600m back to the car park. Spooked by an adder then calling on a cellular phone to SAR to get them out of trouble is pretty dumb as Ben Lomond isn't exactly a difficult place to get lost.



The wooded gully just right of the waterfall

Using technology to stop getting ones self into trouble rather than using technology to get out of trouble (calling for help via PLB, cellular phone etc ) would be the smart and less embarrassing thing to do.

Susan, this is a great way to create a monstrous bureaucracy and eventually impede the delivery of emergency services.

A good many of the situations to which I have responded were, in hindsight, essentially unnecessary and frivolous, in hindsight (which is always perfect). What did we do? We shrugged our shoulders and chalked it up to training. What is benign and nonthreatening to one individual may be incredibly frightening to another with a different background.

Many SAR situations begin in a very benign, humdrum manner, with no hint whatever of serious problems. Many SAR responders can recount situations where they realize that an earlier, more aggressive response would have made an important difference in the outcome.

Bear in mind that many SAR operations are basically volunteer in nature, and the cost to the community is fairly small. Be aware that many agencies (the NPS is one for certain) have policies in place that do permit charging for the really extreme frivolous calls that can develop. Out and out false alarms are, I believe, in most jurisdictions, criminal behavior.

I doubt very much that GPS is luring unprepared people into the outdoors. Unprepared folks have been venturing into sticky territory long before GPS, etc. came along.

As for "Doers making it too easy for the Users, who then multiply like rats" there is a very effective solution that is often implemented. It is called training and education. our group always had a proactive education program which got good information to the community. Over time, it paid off.

I agree. Who decides what constitutes "a basic survival kit"? Some people might consider a knife, bic lighter, and compass as adequate. Others might think you were a fool without a 44 magnum, stove, tent, and sleeping bag. Who decides what is "appropriate atire"? Is an el cheepo plastic rain poncho OK, or do you need a $500 goretex jacket?

Also, who do you charge when the search subject isn't the one who initiated the call? Note that one of the incidents cited in the article was when the mother of the subject called because he didn't show up. The reason was that the subject decided (quite sensibly) that it wasn't wise to continue after dark, and chose to wait until morning. Are you going to bill the mother who made the call? Or the guy who made the safer choice, but then was late?

Up here a some years back, a guy didn't return on time from a multi day ski trip. His wife called SAR. The Troopers helo located him as he was skiing out with no problem. Conditions just made it slower going. He didn't need or wish to be rescued. The Troopers ordered him to get on the helo and he was flown out, essentially against his will. Who do you think they should send the bill to?

I totally agree. I believe the NPS actually refers to this as "preventive SAR". Education is best. You won't get through to all of the people, but you can get through to many of them.

I spent some time lurking on the ETS forum before I joined and started posting. I have observed many posts where people recommend carrying PLBS. Also much discussion of the merits of PLB vs SPOT, etc. But not much discussion about when to use them. The first post I made on ETS was responding to a thread about an incident in the Tietons where an apparently uninjured climber activated SPOT and was short hauled off the mountain, but his buddy climbed down on his own. No one seemed inclined to question whether it was an appropriate situation to activate the SPOT.

The reason that I posted this story in the first place was to make the point that we ourselves need to make sure we give some serious thought to when (and when not) it is appropriate to activate those devices, or use our cell phones to dial 911.

Oh, I'm sure you're right.

But you only mention the cost to the community -- how about the cost to the volunteers? How many have died or been badly injured going after idiots?

Education... and what do you do with the majority, who don't think they need it?

Sue

I can address this question because I have done a lot of volunteer SAR work, spanning several decades (1958 to 1985 essentially). During this time, I became aware of what I might call the "SAR paradox - namely, the more I contributed, the more I received. The result was a "win" for me. I was volunteering for SAR for the very same reasons any of us indulge in any activity - we derive a net benefit.

Forget all that hooey about the dedicated, selfless, noble volunteer. That is a very simplistic, naive description of the volunteer dynamic. It doesn't work for everyone in the general population, but for those who embrace SAR, it is addictive.

The benefits certainly weren't financial, but they were substantial, nontheless. I credit SAR for getting me through a rough period in my personal life. it was the one positive influence in a crumbling marriage and a sub par job (one that involved a paper shuffling bureaucratic maze, incidentally).

People do get killed and injured doing SAR. A good friend died prematurely, having contracted Valley Fever while on an operation, and I have been dinged up a bit myself on various occasions. I vividly remember one occasion, 100 feet down in a badly decaying mine shaft, where I really thought we might not make it.

My honest reaction to that situation was "At least I am going to go out doing something meaningful, not just perishing in some lousy car accident." Whether or not you are going after idiots or not is fairly immaterial, at least during the event. Someone needs help, you respond. It's fairly simple.

In the incident where I was in mortal fear, it is worth noting that our two victims, who had spent a couple of days in the bottom of this mine shaft, had landed there as a result of criminal activity (and some less than brilliant decisions). Once out of the pit, they were promptly interviewed, cuffed, and arrested. We rescue them all and let the deputies sort them out.

In a perfect world, one would prefer to rescue non-idiots. While we are dreaming, let us also specify that victims would be attractive, available, and extremely grateful. Since that isn't the case, education is the best, most productive strategy. The publicity and media attention surrounding some of the more spectacular operations offers a very good platform for these efforts and it can pay off.

I apologize for the length of this post, but this obviously punches one of my buttons.....

NightHiker,

For the most part, I couldn't agree more with Hikermor's and your assessment of SAR operations and the personnel that get involved with SAR. I do take minor exception to:



I was always taught (and how our team handles) that all SAR operations are primarily law enforcement functions due to potential foul play and should be handled as such until proven otherwise.

Pete

Excellent point, AKSAR.
-Blast

I agree with hikermor and NightHiker. I volunteer with a local SAR group for two reasons. Foremost, is that I really like the people who join these groups. It is a very self selecting group. They are the sort of people I like to hang with. And I like using my skills and experience to give something back to the community. I'm getting a bit old for this sort of thing, but I will keep on participating as long as I can, in whatever way I can.

The state of New Hampshire does pretty much exactly that...if you get into trouble through negligence and have to be rescued, you can be billed for the cost of the rescue.