Poor decisions led to a search for an individual trying to summit Mt Katahdin solo. Park officials seeking reimbursement for SAR expenses. Are more places starting to collect on SAR action that is the result of unprepared people putting others at risk trying to find them?

Bangor Daily News - Hiker on the hook for $10,000

Mt Katahdin, alone, winter, storm approaching, never signed in at trailhead, or with rangers...

So the Park service wants to charge for a National Guard Helicopter expense?

I don't think there is anything new or novel about this policy. National Parks have been billing similarly careless visitors for several years. The vast majority of people getting into trouble are not billed. These bozos should probably pay up.

Interesting that the helo time was not chalked up to "training,"which in my experience, is the usual practice.

I have never understood the many users of this forum and their fixation of such words as "natural selection event,", "Darwin Award candidate" and so on. This fixation is one of the many reasons I do not frequent and contribute to this forum as much as I like to.

However to answer your question. Not all SAR teams support charging for rescue. In the area just west of where we now live, the biggest and busiest SAR team does not support charging for rescue. I happen to agree with this SAR team decision not to charge.

2 hours of a national guard blackhawk is probably the majority of the $10,000.

In Switzerland helicopter rescue (mostly mountains and helicopters are used most frequently) is a payed service. Get insurance or prepare to wip out the creditcard after landing. People; both locals and toerists know this and are used to this. Once people get used to such a system, nobody really cares. Just buy insurance.



That actually sounds cheap... I think rescue by small helicopter is about €150 per minute in Switzerland. €9000/hour.

The problem is that somebody has to pay for the expenses. And it doesn't seem fair that others have to pay for people who act recklessly.

When people are taking reasonable precautions then it is reasonable that they shouldn't have to pay. But when someone acts with total disregard for the consequences to others, then it seems reasonable that they should have to pay.

Sadly, apparently paying is optional, so we can probably assume that anyone that has already shown total disregard for others, is not going to pay.

Get out your wallets...

Two different systems, both of which seem to work well on their home turf.It can get confusing when users of one system encounter the other. On Denali, some years ago, we had to deal with some continental climbers who had experienced all the fun they could stand and asked for "rescue." We informed them that they weren't eligible and that they could just ski back down the hill. They seemed surprised that they couldn't just call for rescue when things got a little tough.

The North American system is based on volunteers, augmented by various agencies providing useful assets (helicopters). Capabilities evolve in response to different environments. (You would be surprised at the number of swift water rescues performed in the desert.)

That sort of system works in the Alps, but I don't think it translates so well to much of the U.S. or Canada. Note that Switzerland is a very tiny country (compared to the US). Rescue services (and billing, and insurance) can be readily centralized. Most SAR activity is for climbers, hikers, and skiers. Rescues are frequent enough to justify a full time dedicated service.

In contrast, the U.S. and Canada are vast countries with a huge variety of SAR problems. Depending on where you get into trouble (and what sort of trouble you are in) responsibility for rescue may fall upon local police or fire departments, county sheriffs, state police, the Coast Guard, National Park Service, the military, volunteer SAR teams, or other agencies. Missions can involve everything from climbers dangling on cliffs to demetia patients who wander into the woods at the edge of town to commercial fishermen in the Beriing Sea. In some areas SAR missions are very frequent, while in other places they are rather uncommon. Trying to put all of this together into a universal pay-for-rescue service such as in Switzerland would be a logistical and administrative nightmare.

Note that we do have something like the European system in a few areas where rescues are frequent and expensive. On Denali for example, the NPS maintains a professional high altitude rescue team and helicopter during the climbing season. All climbers are required to pay a fee before starting their climb. The fee goes into a fund that helps off set the cost of rescues. That works there because it is a local area of frequent and expensive rescues administered by one agency.

According your logic, this recent rescue should be billable? The area here receives a lot of rain which makes for very wet and soggy conditions. So the parents of this now deceased child should not of risked going out on a hike in this very popular but mountainous area?

I could not imagine the public backlash if 3 days before Christmas, the SAR team went to Mom and Dad and said; "Sorry for your daughters loss, but you should of known better to not taken her out on a hike in the rain. Here is a $7000.00 rescue bill for your total disregard for the consequences to others."