After the KIM FAMILY <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> and MT HOOD <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> events in Oregon, some discussion has been occurring (mostly by the media) about funding for SAR in Oregon.

One suggestion has been to bill the victim after the search (this is generally getting a cold shoulder) and the other is an added fee onto various permits (like hunting, ATV, special use permits, etc..)

FYI - In Oregon, SAR is the responsibily of the local sheriff. Funding is limited, coming from existing budgets, donations, etc...

any comments ?

I say if alcohol is involved, bill 'em.

This is a difficult question.

If you wish to bill the rescued victim after the events... and they know this beforehand... people will not call for help. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Which is something we don't want obviously.

I think the government should assume most of the costs of the expensive tools and services used during SAR (helicopters, boats, gasoline, etc.) but the SAR teams themselves should assume the more basic costs (nourishment, drinks, basic gear).

I am not able to respond in greater detail right now but… BAD IDEA and not realistic. Fees and/or insurance in some areas and specific situations possible, but not for general SAR applications

Pete

The news mentioned that the estimated bill for the Mt. Hood search was at $100,000 as of a couple of days ago. I suspect it's really a lot more than that. The reporter went on to say that Oregon taxpayers will be footing the bill.

I believe that charging people for SAR is not a good idea, unless you're dealing with a case of extreme negligence (e.g., oops, I activated my PLB because I have a stubbed toe). There should be provisions for that, and probably already are.

Plus, as others mentioned, if folks know they might be charged for SAR, they might not make the call. That's not a good mindset with people's lives in the balance. Imagine if you called 9-1-1 with a fire in your house, or an intruder breaking in. If the firefighters got to the house and the fire was out, or the intruder was gone, we wouldn't be to happy with paying a response fee.

Insurance seems like a better idea, at least for folks knowingly going into the backcountry to have an adventure. But then again, in the long term, involving insurance companies will eventually result in refusal to pay claims or insure someone because of what the insurance company deems to be an "extreme activity". Slowly that "extreme activity" will change from being a weeklong endurance trek to mountaineering, then from mountaineering to hiking, then from hiking to camping, and finally from camping to even having your four tires leave the pavement. So we'll be right back where we started.

I think the key is not more short-sighted regulation, not user fees and insurance, but education and allowing for the risk the outdoors provides. Sometimes people just don't make it. Hopefully they don't suffer and were doing what they loved to do.

Just because SAR is activated isn't a guarantee that someone will be found alive. In our push-button want-it-now society, I think we forget that there is not always a storybook ending where everyone lives happily ever after.

I believe the answer is right in front of us. It would be pretty easy for the USFS to rent out a PLB to groups of folks climbing Mt. Hood. Or just flat out require one, that way the USFS doesn't get involved in the liability. Local climbing and outdoors shops could rent them out and charge by the day. Or users could buy/bring their own. I think this would be the quickest and easiest solution. SAR teams wouldn't have to spent lots of time searching, and more lives (and taxpayer dollars) would hopefully be saved as a result of this.

Okay, off my soapbox... <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I really try to avoid the financial portion of our SAR group, but from what I understand, we do send a bill for most of our call outs, although I do not think that we can force anyone to pay that bill. So I guess if nothing else the party realizes the costs incurred.

I have mixed feelings about this policy, but our funds are VERY limited and a majority of our callouts are usually resulting from someone’s negligence or lack of preparation.

I heard of some hikers in the Smokeis being rescued and charged a fee. They were in some deep snow after a big storm. They didn't ask for help. So I don't think they should be charged.

The Kim's simply got lost and their problem was exacerbated by some thoughtless vandals who tore down a sign. No charge

The guys on Mt Hood knew the risks associated with mountain climbing. It is one thing to put yourself at risk (and therefore your wife and kids) but altogether different from expecting rescuers to put their butts on the line for your thrill seeking ass. I am still wondering why we try to rescue folks that climb mountains.

Call me hard hearted. Make em pay. I don't think it is too difficult to figure out who should pay.

I have alot of mixed feelings about this issue, but I think one thing could possibly occur: If people and organizations don't step up to the plate and do something to alleviate the OVERALL cost, it is real possible it will fall into the federal government's lap to handle, and most people know the consequences of that and don't want it.

The Mt. Hood SAR effort used an AC-130. Sure it helped with the safety of the SAR people as well as looking for the missing climbers. They run $190 million in 2001 dollars apiece, and are the most complex aircraft weapon system in the world with 609,000 lines of software code. They are in high demand worldwide by U.S. ground commanders for aerial support in the GWOT. There are only about 25 of them existing in service after 4 new-builds this year. That could have raised the eyebrows of number-crunchers holding elected office. There is just no way to insure against something like that.

The more incidents that happen like the Mt. Hood SAR operation, the more questions that will be asked about who is footing the biggest bill in the end. Then it might just be a matter of time if individual states do not come up with sufficient ways to deal with it before the feds step in.

SAR efforts generally help taxpayers. Too much of the .gov budget is geared toward taxconsumers. It is a nice change for the folks that actually foot the bill ,ie the federal budget, be allowed a few benefits.

No charge for SAR unless you are lost as a result of criminal activity.

I don't see any major improvements happening soon. All governments and taxpayers are perfectly happy to let SAR work for them for free.

If SAR was paid for by tax dollars, the local governments will insist on stepping in to control it. Same thing if it were federal or state. You'd just have another top-heavy bunch of nitwits controlling what they don't understand, and schlepping the funds to other projects.

You can forget getting insurance companies involved; they don't want to pay for the stuff they're being paid to cover now.

Charging people for every rescue has already been covered. But what about situations like the three guys on Mt. Hood? One dead for sure, two probably. They started the ball rolling, but they're in no condition to pay now. They all probably had families who said, "One of these days you're going to die climbing those stupid mountains". So, do you try to charge the widow and fatherless kids, who were against the ascent from the beginning?

The only thing I can think of is to give SARs regulation 501-c-3 non-profit status, and then ask the people you've rescued to help out at fundraisers or something. Some might actually do it.

If there is an easy answer to this, I have no idea what it might be.

Sue

NO CHARGE...
THATS WHY I VOLUNTEER...
ACCIDENTS HAPPEN...AND NOT ALL THE TIME...
HOWEVER, IF YOU WERE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY? WELL....

For people who make an honest mistake, like the Kim's, or honestly get stuck by the unexpected, like chest pains while hiking or an AD while hunting (ie, Mr. Chaney), no charge.

For people who do the amazingly stupid, like not bringing their fishing boat in when there is a hurricane on the way or drive trucks out on iced over lakes that aren't solid enough yet, or take no actions to help themselves beforehand, like the people who think a cellphone is a survival kit and a sore back due to being out of shape is an emergency, I say fine the suckers.

But the trouble comes into people in the middle, like the guys on Mt Hood or any of the rescues on Denali or the clowns who chopper up to the top of a mountain to ski down and get caught in their own avalanche, I think there needs to be a middle ground. I'm probably going to annoy people with this, but I know that most of the bigger mountains are state or federal land- if you have to pay for a permit to camp in Yellowstone, I don't see why there shouldn't have to be a requirement to pay for a permit to climb on that land.

Down side to that is getting the insurance companies to go for it. They balk at paying for transport with a bad appendix, much less the surgery and the recovery room.

The one thing I wish would happen more, not just for SAR, but also for EMS and fire (particularly in areas where it is all volunteer) is people who needed the services and can afford to make a gift doing so.

Post deleted by Doug_Ritter

I second you on many points. I think that people who have no respect for common sense should pay for their mistakes not by being cold and uncomortable for few hours but should be hit where it hurts the most which is their wallet. Honest mistakes happen and maybe there shouldnt be a specific fee but estimated donations expected.

I like the way that scuba diving emergencies are set up. Med evac and decompression chamber are very expensive and regardless if you made a mistake or something went wrong you are being billed and we are talking here bills of about $10k. You are responsible period.

Same goes for med evac in other countries and I saw it in the clinics on Mt Everest. You either pay up front or have a proof of some kind of insurance plan. You do something stupid it is gonna cost you pretty penny.

I think that taxing gun permits, atv permits is pointless. I mean it is a source of the money but hunters/ atvers/ offroaders are not the one that require SAR services. It is hikers, climbers who very often disregard any rules and hope for luck and rescue when SHTF since help is only cellphone call away.

I think that small agencies should be able to bill federal gov't who after all should be able to bill indivudual. I also think that if total neglect is shown towards rules and regulations person should be fined.

In the end what would be nice to have is divers equivalent of insurance for hikers... I believe I pay about $40 bucks a year to not pay $10k in bills just in case I have bends. I would pay $40 a year for hiking insurance (more for climbing, etc) to have a peace of mind. Such insurance should be offered when buying hiking permits on federal lands at parks hq. If you declined you are than responsible for your bill. Simple.

This happened in the White mountains a few years back. Seems a couple of young men decided to hike into the WMNF, with a backpack full of beer, & nothing more. In November, IIRC. Also, the only clothing they had were jeans, T-shirts, & jean jackets. They were rescued, & charged. It was found that they went into the wildeness unprepared, and risked their own lives & the lives of searchers because of their stupidity. Now, at least there, if the rescued are found negligent, they can be charged.
I am also a rescue volunteer in MA. Even though we arent paid, we still have to take tests, & meet certain criteria to be allowed to join in on a search. And, we have to be contacted through the state PD. So, even though we work for free, we are still regulated. Most of this is a result of different scenarios that have occured in the past, involving untrained searchers, who then have to be rescued. We model our agency on ones in CA, as well as what FEMA originally used (forgot what FEMA is now called). I dont mind doing it for freee at all. Thats why I volunteer for it. I think that, if someone needs to be rescued because they go into the wilderness unprepared, or, what happens quite a bit, people get too lazy to walk out (happens at Mt. Greylock quite a bit), then they should be charged. Not so we can be paid; but, rather, to allow the state to purchase better gear like Stokes litters, specialized gear, or even fund some training courses (we all must be at LEAST first responder qualified). It isnt about money; its about finding & rescuing those who need it, regardless of why, in the most efficient way possible. All expenses come out of the volunteer's pockets.

I'm a Captain at local volunteer EMS agency and I'm frustrated with the fact that I deal with outdated equipment, work on the shoe string budget that usually means that I have enough money for gas and nrbs and have no funding for better training and tools but over the years we all learn to make with what we have. But it would be nice to be able to bill somebody for rescue effort not to get paid but to apply the money towards better gear and training. I still believe that hitting somebody in the wallet for stupidty is the best detterment from happening again.

Example not SAR related:
I have this guy that I used to pick up on regular bases for heroin overdose. He gets high and passes out. I show up and do my deed and bring him back and drop him at the ER. Everytime I bring him in he gets a close to a $1000 bus ride. Never paid a dime. He has a $600 cellphone but can't pay the ambulance bill. One day his cellphone accidently fell and got run over by the ambulance. He was crying about the cellphone so we told him that it happens. He went out and bought a new one. Next week when we were carrying him out one of the cops in custody of his belongings slipped and dropped his cellphone and wallet in the drain. Cellphone was shot. Guy went out and bought a new phone. Next time I picked him up he ODed outside during rain storm and his cellphone got wet again. He got out and bought another one. Guess what happnened next time? We picked him up and this time somebody worked him over and his cellphone was gone. He went out and bought another one. In period of a month just ambulance rides costed him close to $4000 without counting hosp stays. His cellphones costed him about $2400. He never paid his hosp bills but he paid for his cellphones. He was my regular for 2 years and I havent had his since June yet I see him on the streets. Quite honsetly I do believe that it finally got him where he had to pay out of his own pocket for his stupidity. Apply the same equation to SAR. Upon showing neglect charge them for fuel, men hours, equipment, wear and tear and most likely it will not happen again.

Even though it is not exactly SAR-related, I agree with you, and you provide a good example. However, take the same person being rescued repeatedly because of his idiotic drug-abuse problem in SAR scenarios and I think you would get more of the same, even if you charged him as a deterrent (unless there was a legal way of making him pay like garnishing wages, etc.) wouldn't you?

"It isnt about money; its about finding & rescuing those who need it, regardless of why, in the most efficient way possible. All expenses come out of the volunteer's pockets."

That is exactly the point, as far as I'm concerned. SAR people are often putting their life on the line. I don't want to hear that some volunteer with SAR lost his life or got maimed because he had to make do with inferior equipment. If they want to volunteer, fine. That's probably the best way to keep control of your group, rather than letting a bureaucrat or a bean-counter do it. But I firmly think they should at least have their equipment and expenses covered.

Sue

Sue, I do too. Although, I use my own personal hiking gear, and may have a hard time trusting someone elses, with the exception of community gear (ropes, litters, etc). Normally, if we are there for longer than one period (about 12 hours), the red cross, or volunteer folks from the local community will come out & feed us. Which is nice.
I was on the Molly Bish search team when she first disappeared. Then, when they found a couple of clues a year or so later, I was on THAT team. Her parents personally came out & thanked us each individually that day. That, to me, is what its all about. WE have an excellent PIO who talks with relatives, and let them know whats going on. The Bish's understood we were doing all we could. My heart goes out to them to this day.

Maybe an idea would be to tack on a small fee or tax to the sale of any outdoor and sporting goods product. A penny per dollar perhaps? That wouldn't break anybody's bank and retailers won't suffer if they increased costs by that small amount. Proceeds could be used to better equip SAR personnel or whatever the SAR think it should go toward. Maybe even life insurance in the event of something unfortunate happening to a SAR person.

A penny on a million dollars of sales in a state would generate $10,000. A larger state that might have a large volume of sales would increase that amount. A billion dollars of outdoor and sporting goods sold would generate $10 million for SAR. No chump change there. And if the fee were larger than 1%...you get the picture.