I would be the first to commend the volunteer efforts of so many brave souls. There exist myriad volunteer opportunities wherein so many good folk like yourself contribute so much of their time and effort without one notion of recompense. I too, have happily and willingly volunteered a good deal of time toward helping my fellow man.

But that is beside the point. The point is that any money spent by the government towards rescuing others from actions they voluntarily took for their own personal benefit is a misappropriation. This includes money spent for use of military services for other than their designated purpose, even if it can be rationalized as "qualitative practice". This is not to say that the experience isn't practical and of some redemptive value, but that the cost for such activity is a misappropriation.

While the robust use of volunteer effort may greatly minimize the direct expenditure of funds, there remains the issue of indirect expenditures for all the administrative costs associated with government oversight for any such activity. While we can certainly claim that direct costs are effectively minimized, it would be a hard sell to imply that all costs are minimized. The government, whether local, state or federal, does not know the use of the term frugal or efficient. I have worked with them for the better part of 30 years, tracking their inefficiencies and their bad spending practices, and we are not in debt by accident.

To be more precise, the government does not ask us for funding, they take what they want, and spend it rather whimsically. This notion of taking from the public trust any amount to pay for the behavior of a few people is frivolous, and in my opinion, wholly unnecessary. Even ordinary people getting into trouble is still reckless, because they have no means of mitigating whatever risks they take should the risks be realized, however mundane they may be. All the examples you cite are risky behavior.

It would be far more reasonable if, instead of foisting off these risks on the general public, it were a legal requirement that those with an adventurous spirit should be compelled to post bond, or otherwise indemnify the public against the costs of their eventual rescue, such as it may be. As my daughter who used to work for an insurance agent here in town told me, for the right price, you can insure against anything. The market would set the price, based on simple economics. Those who are willing and able to work to pay for their fun can take the necessary steps to mitigate the risks implied, and go about their merry business. Should fate fall on them unfavorably, the costs of their rescue are born by the underwriters, who collect the premiums that pay the bills. Should a person elect not to take the risk, then they don't pay for the insurance, and systemic equity is well preserved. Those who would abuse the process will lose the privilege, possibly by incarceration or civil penalty, or both.

That seems to best fit the model we have made for how our society ought to be working. Instead of relying more and more on the government to take care of us, thus spreading the costs to the undeserved, it would seem a better proposition to make every man fiscally responsible for his own actions.

In so doing, the value of all that volunteer effort, and that military training, and the good will toward our fellow man can be better preserved, both from a humanitarian as well as a financial perspective. Being one most willing to pay my way, I would laud all that most beneficent effort for my welfare should the need arise, and I would feel guilt free for having first met my duty as a citizen and member of this community, that I didn't cost my neighbor one nickel to come save my sorry hide.