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