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