OBG,

Granted, statistics can be manipulated to support just about any position but let's cut to the chase, the real issue here isn't how many practitioners of which type of activity cause the most rescues, it's money, who is going to pay for these rescues?

Many will try to justify legislating the mandatory carrying of MLU's as a way to save the lives and preserve the safety of the SAR personnel who answer these calls for help but you and I know that's just not true. The SAR people who respond to these call outs do so because they love what they do, it's not for money, recognition or a sense of obligation to the person being rescued.

To get into the Emergency Services Detail(ESD), on my department you have to try like hell. You have to be an EMT, dive certified, swift water trained, mountain rescue certified, in excellent physical condition and able to type 150 words per minute (ok, so I lied about that last one but I probably missed a few other requirements), and that's just to qualify! There are always many more qualified applicants than available positions and if I weren't on the downhill side of my career, I'd be going for it myself, so no, I don't buy the image of a bunch of SAR people cursing the dumb fools who cause them to put their lives at risk any more than you or I got into a black&white and put our lives at risk everyday because someone held a gun to our heads (no pun intended).

I don't want to make this political but if the real issue is our tax dollars, I would much rather spend my money rescuing a group of climbers trapped in a white out (whether or not they had MLU's), than on the food stamps the gentleman ahead of me at Von's today used to pay for his Doritos and Pepsi before getting into his new Escalade (don't get me started).

"...I don't want to make this political but if the real issue is our tax dollars, I would much rather spend my money rescuing a group of climbers trapped in a white out (whether or not they had MLU's), than on the food stamps the gentleman ahead of me at Von's today used to pay for his Doritos and Pepsi before getting into his new Escalade (don't get me started)..."

You are so right about that. But, if having the climbers carry a $5 item will possibly save a bunch of tax dollars, maybe to be spent buying better equipment for the SAR guys, why not???

I agree with your sign idea.

Many years ago my Dad and I canoed down the Raisin River in Lenawee county. We notified the authorities of our plans. They reminded us to portage around the upcoming falls. There is a sign saying, " three people have died trying to shoot these falls." We told them we'd shot many falls. They were unphased and replied, "No problem. We can change the three to a five."

Signs worked for us. We portaged.

Well said! Also consider that many rescues are really carried out by volunteers, particularly mountain rescues. As for Oregon, they have an Air Force reserve rescue wing in Portland that trains constantly by mock rescues or simply flys to punch holes in the sky. They really love getting to do a real rescue. We are already paying for most city, state and federal people that participate in search and rescue. Are we supposed to pay them to be ready and then get charged when they have to actually do a rescue??
All of these agencies spend huge sums of money on equipment and training, our tax dollars. They should not be charging for actually providing a service.
Remember when you run off the road on ice and the Highway Patrol came and pulled you out, were you sent a bill? When you fell off a ladder and were knocked unconscious, did the city paramedics charge you for coming and checking you out?
What annoys me is a person saying mountain climbers should pay but not others who also take risks on the highways, at home whatever. If some fatcat that never took care of his health drops on the street with a heart attack, should the paramedics not come along because he took unnecessary risks?? Trust me, no matter what you do, you can come into need of some form of rescue.
From my experience, many that are responsible for rescue operations are not very capable of actually accomplishing them. No proper training, no experience and too many donuts along the way. We once were called to haul some sheriff folks from a canyon because they were in a "life and death situation". The truth was that they were out of shape, overweight and lazy. They had no problem hiking downhill, just could not get back up. As it happened the helicopter had a mechanical failure and crashed on that "rescue", one crewman lost a leg when trapped under the wreckage, one had a broken back and another minor burns. The Air Force was out a $25 million aircraft. Should we have charged the Sheriff's office for the medical, time off work and the helicopter??
We pay taxes to receive some services, whether it is better roads, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. When we fall off a mountain, we should get consideration also. Could have stayed home and been safe until an electrical short caused a fire and we had to be rescued by the fire department. Sure draw a line, but where?

I am of the mind that we all pay our share of taxes already. I can not see how some official agency doing their funded job really drives much additional cost. Helicopters fly training missions all the time, personal are on duty and so on. Maybe we should ground the birds and lock up the sheriff's office until they are needed then pay them for their services only, instead of paying for the flying club and the cruise to the coffee shop 365 days a year with our tax dollars.

YES! That is what should be done. Put it simple and blunt and people pay attention and do the smarter thing.

All those "Volunteers" need to be housed and fed, trucks need fuel, batteries are needed, disposable supplies are needed, ropes and webbing need to be replaced after so many uses or hard falls, personal and team gear gets damaged and needs to be replaced, etc..
What most don't realize is the high costs involved EVEN THOUGH the search team may be unpaid volunteers. Often paid LEO's are on overtime to be on scene, the regular shift staff is needed for routine duty.
As a former volunteer SAR team member who worked both as a field team leader, and a team logistics officer, I've been personally and directly involved in mission costs, and expenses in SAR missions, and often the $$$ amount involved would shock most people.

Hmm, I think there is a huge difference between paying for infrastructure improvements and support, vs paying for exclusive acts of a recreational nature.

I am not opposed to supporting the costs associated with keeping our country, our community, and our security intact and reasonably up to date. I am not thrilled about taking care of folks who go about their daily business and somehow end up in trouble. So long as they didn't cause the issue by being reckless, I can live with it.

What I don't cotton is when some meatball goes out and does something involving significant risk for no other reason than just because he wants to see if he can, and the rest of us foot the bill.

You are quite correct that life is full of risks. We all face our share every day. If in the course of going to work I should encounter conditions that would likely jeopardize my ability to proceed, and should I then be in need of assistance, that seems to be a justifiable reason to have someone on payroll able to render assistance. That is what will keep our society functioning through a crisis. People drop in the street all the time, regardless of their apparent condition. You can take all the precautions in the world, and you will still die someday. It is just as likely that a healthy person will drop in the street while the fatcat continues on his merry way, so I don't see how singling them out is relevent either. I would tend to conclude that those who don't take care of themselves are less prepared to deal with a physical crisis, but that is more an observatory conclusion.

Yes, I think we should've charged the Sheriff's office for that rescue. Not only were they delinquent, but their actions deliberately resulted in the destruction of government property and grave personal injury. Hopefully they will be held accountable on a negligent charge, as that is precisely what they were.

I don't care if it is falling off a mountain, crashing a motorbike, sinking a sailboat, or playing with matches in the garage. Reckless behavior ought to require individual accountability at some point, preferably before the fact. I am tired of paying for it.

As well, rescue services do cost a bit to get equipped up and kept functional through training and maintenance, again that is warranted to safegaurd against unavoidable malady. However, rescue operations also cost a lot of money, and if the rescue effort is based on needlessly reckless behavior, then I think those responsible for perpetrating the activity ought to pony up.

OBG, as for dealing with welfare fraud, you really don't want to get me started on that one, do you?

The least we can do is label reckless behavior for what it is. I would favor not charging people for rescue costs. However, going up Mt. Hood without the proper clothing or supplies in the middle of winter (and dying for it), or taking your dog (Black Lab!-not husky or bitter cold prepared dog) up the mountain in the middle of winter is a sign of cruelty and/or stupidity. I would bet that the poor dog had a cute bandana around it's neck as it layed on top of it's abusing humans to keep them warm. I vote - save their asses -then embarass and educate them and have them talk to school kids about their mistakes and misjudgments.

It is kind of like reimbursable services in law enforcement. A big tree falls down blocking a road, the local agency sends an officer to direct traffic, that is part of the job. A movie company wants to film on that same road, gets the required permits from the highway department, and pays the agency to send an officer, paying both the officers overtime (NOT an on duty officer, but one off duty), and so much per mile for the vehicle. Why? Because making movies on a public highway is not the "normal" use of the road, so the user has to pay for the governmental agency to provide the service.

As for the use of the military in civilian rescues, yes, they love to get involved in them. A real life civilian rescue is great training for their primary mission, real life military rescues. I had more than one Navy chopper land at a traffic accident, and ask if they could provide medical aid, "for the training." And that is why the Army sends its combat medics and doctors to Martin Luther King Hospital in L.A., lots of shooting and stabbing victims for them to train on, to prepare them for their primary mission, combat.

I still say, if a $5 item will just possibly help in your rescue, what does it hurt to take one along???