Aksar's post jolted me into the realization that things have changed since 1988, when I was on Denali. This prompted me to check the Denali NP website, especially the portion dealing with climbing within the park - http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/upload/English-2-Ready-4.pdf . I found the introduction to this document, while written specifically for Alaska, has relevance to wild places and their users everywhere.

Indeed,things have changed in the last twenty-five years, especially the "special users fee" now collected for climbers of Denali and Foraker. In the NPS literature, this fee is not specifically described as a rescue fee, but does list the performance of many other services required by the volume of climbers.

I think we are arguing over straw men here. Most ops in North America, like most other emergency services, are not billed. If your dwelling catches on fire, or your car is in an accident, do you acquire a charge? Not usually, unless there are exceptional circumstances. It's the same with SAR in North America. That is why the Baxter State Park story is news.

TH has a good point about the use of terms like 'natural selection" and "Darwin" candidates. They contribute almost nothingto understanding the situation at hand. Usually the only information any of us will have is from media outlets, whose information is typically quite superficial, an inherent characteristic of breaking news. When more information is available, conclusions often change.

It would be interesting to figure out the tax burden we bear as a result of SAR operations. I am confident that you will need to be really good with small fractions to achieve this.

I have to agree with TH and H on this point. I believe we should respectfully discuss survival events for what we can learn from them. It serves no good purpose to anonymously humiliate someone who haplessly slips up, makes a bad decision, or does not have the equipment, training, or experience that some of us do.

IMO, it is helpful the take a look at the actions of the folks involved before deciding if they should be “charged.”
For example:
Did they violate any regulations that they knew about or should have known about? And/or
Did they take “unreasonable” risks, or fail to take “reasonable” precautions for the activities they were engaged in? Or,
Did they take “reasonable” precautions and care, but still were the victims of “bad luck.”
Every rescue lies somewhere on this spectrum. At one end, IMO they should be charged; at the other, no. In the middle, it is debatable.

Current user fee for climbers on Denali and Foraker is I believe $365. Part of the reason for the booklet you linked is that many climbers (often but not always foreigners), who may be highly experienced in other regions, arrive somewhat unprepared for conditions on a 20,000 ft peak located in subarctic latitudes. I believe the NPS relaxes some requirements slightly for climbers who have been on the mountain previously, on the assumption they have a better idea what they are getting into.

The problem is that these things are always a judgement call. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable risk? Who decides what are reasonable precautions? For example some people think virtually ANY mountaineering is crazy dangerous. Often the officials who would have to make these judgements are totally ignorant about these activities.

Personally I don't think people should be charged for rescue except perhaps in the most outstandingly egregious cases.

Not directly tied to this incident, but interesting related reading about how the rules in Baxter State Park were relaxed for winter hiking in December 2009.

http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web09f/newswire-baxter-winter-regulations-relaxed

Apparently the park does now allow solo hikers in winter, but in the recent case, the person involved didn't even follow the more relaxed, basic rules, since they didn't obtain a permit, or even sign in at a trailhead.

Prior to 2009, the park had required a minimum group size of 4 in winter, with equipment, food, and overnight stay requirements. With the new rules, the required equipment is now "recommended", and there is no minimum group size. You do still need to secure a permit, but those are easier and quicker to obtain than before. It's an interesting article because it talks about why they changed the rules, and what they hoped to accomplish.

Good points.

Another thing to consider before throwing around derogatory comments is that there can easily be important, opinion-shifting factors about the incident that don't get reported. An example is this very high profile piece that makes the 'good Samaritan' rescuer out as a buffoon. Turns out that the rest of the story shows such a judgment to be much less clear cut.

Well if everybody is charged for rescue, you won't have a debate about to charge or not to charge. It can be a up front system like Denali or afterwards by the user or his insurance like in Switzerland. You can determine the fee by the local park, why bother with standardising? The cost certainly aren’t ‘t.

Rescue has to be paid one or the other way. I’m currently seeing the effect of government paid services and the budgets cuts; SAR helicopter being removed from service, training cycles slowed by 1/3, medical units completely removed, fire engines being replaced by ‘rapid intervention vehicles’ (1/3 of the crew and far less capability), extending write off periods of equipment, etc. I would rather have a paid rescue service than no service.

My regrets for your situation; it is indeed grim. Fortunately things are not bad in SoCal at the moment. I think this shows one of the advantages of a volunteer involved system - relative freedom from budget cycles. The typical operation is not that complex or expensive. You need ten or twenty bucko lads and lassies to go out and find little Johnnie and bring him back. You need experienced people more than elaborate equipment and if they are volunteers,that neatly manages the budget.

Then, of course, there is the non-typical operation, but that's another story