AKSAR summarizes the SAR situation extremely well, and my experience agrees with his. My first SAR was in 1958, an incredibly garbled and inept operation, for three Boy Scouts who were indeed reckless (in hindsight). The public outcry spurred development of a much better system, mostly volunteer and military on training assignment under the direction of the county Sheriff. The USAF chopper pilots we worked with relished SAR missions. Their day job milk runs to the missile silos surrounding Tucson weren't very challenging, and as Vietnam veterans, they relished challenges.

The general rule is to rescue first, and ask questions later. I vividly recall an operation which stands out for two reasons. First it was genuinely dangerous and I could have died or been seriously injured. Secondly, I noticed that seconds after emerging from the crumbling mine shaft, our two victims were proned out on the hood of a squad car and in the process of receiving metal bracelets. Just before driving their vehicle into the mine shaft, they had been burglarizing the mine installation. Pima County jail never had more grateful inmates....

One other point - at least in NPS areas, people who are reckless can, and are, charged with the cost of their rescue. The most famous case comes from the Grand Canyon where a party activated their PLB three times in twenty-four hours (the last time because the water from the spring tasted "slightly salty."

One of these days, someone will write a history of SAR in the USA. I'll bet it will find that it has been a fruitful blend of citizen initiative and talent, with good professional oversight, and prudent use of tax revenues.

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.

Determining someone's worth is irrelevant to the point. Such a thing is a capricious undertaking in any case, and hardly the basis for deciding who should foot the bill, not whether such cost is warranted in one case and not another. You infer something besides the point.

The point is, who should be paying the bill? Under the current scheme of things, those with no fiduciary or other intrinsic interest in the outcome of the event are nonetheless paying for whatever consequence may materialize. That is simply unacceptable, at any scale. I do not expect you or anyone else to pay my medical costs because I elected to play Rugby 30 years ago, while I was a smoker, and subsequently have incurred chronic injury requiring ongoing medical treatment. It was my choice to do these things. You and everyone else had no say in that decision, so you should not be bearing the burden of paying for them now. That is on me, as it should be. In fact, I still take risks, and I am both willing and able to pay the costs associated with those risks.

To bring this argument full circle, my point is that, as a society, one of the most fundamental aspects of our existence is the notion that each man is responsible for himself at the least. Our survival as a group depends to a large extent on the ability of each individual member making adequate provision for himself and those he is responsible for. Failing this, our society will fall. This is the fundamental principle of our success, and our willingness to forsake that responsibility is what is eroding our way of life.

Folks, if we are to survive, we must first take up our own yokes and expect others to do the same. For the few who have an abundance, regardless what form it may be, they can choose to share that with others who may come up short, but it must be voluntary, not a compulsion. Our country was built on that principle, and prospered with it, and is withering now without it. We must be willing to work hard, to give freely, and to care for one another. This cannot and will not happen if it is by force or threat that we are made to do so. It is a fundamental of human nature to give till it hurts, but to fight vehemently against confiscation.

When you take from me without it first being offered, you diminish us both, as well the value of that which was taken.

This concept has nothing to do with judgment. I have yet to learn of any community that failed due to lack of taxation. But there have been plenty that have because of it.

Folks, we're going off on a tangent to political philosophy. It's a form of political discussion, and there are other forums better suited for that.

Well, since we're on political philosophy anyway...

I think it's a fundamental role of human civilization to do things like SAR. The strength of civilization, and the reason that the human species has been so successful, is because we're social animals. Caring for our 'stragglers' is necessary and essence of being human. To me this transcends any profit-and-loss statement or notions of libertarian politics.

Rescue first, ask questions later.

A college professor I studied under years ago spoke of a time when he worked as a cop in a large city in South Africa. One night on patrol he heard a baby crying. He was in a warehouse district with no residences nearby. He began searching for the baby and finally found it in a dumpster. He told us (members of the class) he could not have turned away. He felt compelled to search till he found the infant. He gave this as an example of instinctive behaviour which is directed at preserving the species. Searching for a lost member of our "tribe" is as basic as searching for food or water.

Benjamin-

From your writing I assume you must be a lawyer. Or maybe a wannabe lawyer.

But no worries man. We even rescue lawyers!

(Although I sometimes question whether we should be rescuing lawyers? )

Government seems to do what Ben wishes s to limit expenditure on SAR activities. The budget defines the number of helicopters, personnel, fuel, and supplies available for sar work. Volunteers augment this expenditure, but not infinitely. Any sar effort will be constrained to using up the existing budgeted items, and will stop when those are exhausted. Some states have an abundance of resources, others a much more modest supply, predicated on the will of appointed and elected officials to use the resources under their control. If you get lost in Alaska, you may get a military helicopter ride; if in Wyoming, it might be Harrison Ford flying a personal chopper (it happened, twice). Get lost in the Adirondacks, and you get a couple of forest rangers, and maybe an ATV. I think it means that the political system is doing exactly what Ben wants done: applying a calculus of the value of rescuing someone in determining how to allocate funds. It just happens in an arcane, covert, and unknowable fashion, which we call democracy.

Same thing happens in ER's. We hold out the offer to care for all comers, but limit access by limiting the number and size of ER's, so that queuing, delays in care and lack of capacity make the difference in who lives and dies, rather than a committee. It all seems to be working just fine...

Yeah Nursemike, that's about how it works.

Also I should mention that in Alaska you might get a military helicopter ride. Then again maybe not. In recent years, at any given time, about half of those folks and their aircraft are deployed in Afganistan. Those that are in Alaska between deployments have other military duties. They support civilian SAR on an "as available" basis. And they have their own rules, for example the military will not do civilian body recoveries. State Troopers and volunteer SAR will do recoveries if it can be accomplished with minimal risk.

We do the best we can with what we have available.