I can agree with that. But if searches like this go on the rise and costs go on the rise (regardless of how funded, pre-funded) and the government foots the bill in any way, I was implying some person in Congress will get ticked off and come up with something and try to get it passed. Especially when they are high profile cases you see on the news 24 hrs a day and get national attention like this case.

If the military was prefunded I would rather see those resources be used up responding to a real disaster that could not be helped. Not somebody's recreational mishap that could be prevented. But I guess the Coast Guard is all to familiar with those and it will be a never-ending thing.

I like the fact that they bill boneheads for the search sometimes. The government wastes enough tax dollars already. Come to think of it, I really couldn't leave them on their own though. I just look at that as downright wrong, no matter what mistakes they could or could not have made. I don't ever look at them as should be being held criminally responsible, just financially liable though.

They might start saying it, but they would be dead wrong. There are many foods that are fatty, but healthy. Peanuts and Salmon and Tuna all come immediately to mind. Plus there are entire diets devoted to eating more fat and less carbs. Should we outlaw all white flour? Just all refined flour? How about sugar? Who makes the determination of what is healthy? Some see the current government food pyramid as insanely unhealthy, and the past ones as criminal! Big Brother, Big Government, and Nanny Statism are all bad, no matter the situation.

Accurate warnings, clearly posted on food, and/or climbing areas allow intelligent individuals to make their OWN decisions. Whenever we allow government to make those decisions for us, we lose. We lose personal freedom, we lose self-respect, we lose accountability. We gain quite literally nothing as every law I've read in this area has created more harm than good. About the only law I would support would be to increase food labeling requirements and make them more consistent - perhaps similar with regard to risky outdoor activity. I imagine that requiring climbers to read warnings would help, but some people still wouldn't read them or wouldn't stop at the ranger station before embarking. Does that mean that a professional team should be required to jump through hoops for a license? And presumably there would be a nice price attached to that. My guess is that tourist dollars already pay a large part of SAR activity and volunteers make up the rest. Why should there be any concern whatsoever about the costs of rescue? If it's too costly, it won't happen or will be all volunteer. That makes the climb riskier and presumably less active, and thus bringing down the requirement for SAR dollars. Ah, the free market works wonders.

Why should I not be able to make such a decision in the future based on the stupidity of others? There are so many a##hats in this world that we would have to protect everything so carefully as to make life painfully boring, bland, and restrictive. That's not to say that regulation isn't important, but regulation of industry, commerce, environment, and other larger things we can't control directly... that's what government can do for us. The rest of it? Well, that's up to us to do right (or wrong, as the case may be). In the end, there will be fewer and fewer "wrong" choices as they either Darwin themselves or smarten up and learn their lesson.

Now... I'd like to go eat my chili cheese dog in peace while I wash it down with a nice 32 oz. Mountain Dew. :-) That's why I work hard to pay for health insurance (among other things) right? Oh, and emergency medicine costs have all the uninsured already built in. Why socialize it?

You're absolutely right... the bill, if any - and not covered by the area's SAR team effectively financed through said tourist dollars - should fall on the parties to be rescued. I'm quite certain that insurance for those evens would be in high demand if that were the case. Personal responsibility is so much more effective at keeping things running smoothly than the government ever could be.

As an experianced climber with a little bit of training in mountain survival, they are either:
1) Dead. As a result of hypothermia or from a fall.
or,
2) Sitting in a snow hole/cave waiting for the weather to break.

Anything else is whistful thinking, I'm afraid and I very much fear that 1) is the case.

If you are an "adventurer" you should expect to pay for a rescue. That is how it is done in Europe.

Just remember mountain climbing can be dangerous anytime of the year. Climbers take a risk with each climb. The desire is to minimize the risks by climbiing at an appropriate time and date, often to avoid potential natural hazards, such as rock and icefall. The one thing that is hardest to plan for is weather. Weather on a large mountain can change rapidly and often without being predicted in forecasts.
I have climbed Mt. Hood via the Cathedral Ridge route and have not tried Cooper Spur, which is the route the climbers are stranded on. The climbers were attempting a rapid ascent with light gear, which means in some terms it was supposed to be up and down in a short timeframe. Commonly refered to as an "Alpine Ascent". The risk is if something goes wrong you have little gear and also if the weather is an issue, as in this case, rescuers are hampered also. The fact that it is December really does not make a climb particularly more risky, but it usually means planning on colder conditions, potential for longer duration storms and variable climbing conditions in regard to snow and ice conditions.
I was once on Mt. Rainier and it snowed 3 feet on us in July at 10,000ft, most years in July there will be no snow to a few inches during a storm at that altitude. Weather on large mountains is just an entity of it's own, especially mountains near to the coast.
The biggest worry for the stranded climbers is if they have enough fuel for their stove to melt water to drink and enough gear to keep frostbite to a minimum if temps are extemely low. That depends on how lightly they packed. Given their experience level, I would say they likely have extra fuel and clothing, sleeping gear and food along. Whether it is enough, that is the worry.
Also, snow caves are really very warm in relation to exposed temperatures outside the cave, that should help keep them safer. No wind will effect them in a snow cave as well.
I give them an excellent chance at survival, if the weather will just let up soon. Time is the enemy in this situation. Pray for the best!

The Search and rescue team I am part of does not charge for a rescue, however, if the rescuer (or his/her family) wishes to donate something to the team, is is appreciated. But it is clear that a rescue must not be postponed or cancelled for monetary reasons.

Many SAR teams are self-funded. For example, in order to raise some funds, some volunteers in the team I am part of perform first-aid in local events.

Yes,
The SAR team I worked with for a few years was all volunteer. The best thing we ever got for searches was the awsome meals from the local county sheriff's "chuck wagon".
I never expected to get paid but what I am proposing is when someone goes "out of their way" to get in a SAR situation they should expect to reimburse their rescuers for their rescue. This would ensure that there would be funding for future SARs. Out of the way means BC skiers/ riders, climbers, mountaineers, ww kayakers and rafters etc.
As a climber I expect myself to be self sufficient 98% of the time but if it really hits the fan I would have no problem with being expected to pay something for them coming and getting me.

Every SAR group I have worked with or heard of is against charging for their
services. They do however welcome donations from those rescued. The current
folks I work have meetings each month and often the rescued attend or send
cards and donations.
Some we have found send thousands of dollars, some send a $100 check each
year, some send a card, depends on their means.

One reason I do not like charges relates to a search about 30 years ago
in Idaho for some hunters. They didn't want to be rescued and pay fines,
so avoided our search team and tried to follow the tracks out. They didn't
make it. Died of hypothermia. We found were their tracks showed them
hiding when searchers went by.

Sounds like those hunters in Idaho 30 years ago had a death wish. People can only be helped if they are willing to help themselves sometimes. Avoiding a SAR...wow..Hate to speak ill of the dead, but....well you know.