I guess this started from the other thread on the guy who died emulating Survivor man.

IMO, S and R will rescue anyone of course but I really think they are there to rescue cases where the unexpected happens, the campers who get caught in a flash flood , the sailor whose boat capsizes etc., not the morons who go over Niagara Falls in a barrel or pulling some other daredevil stunt.

Good, this issue is worthy of a separate thread, not distracting the Survivor man thread.

The troubles with your statement are several:

- Exactly how do you draw the line between those worthy of rescue and those who are not? I guess base jumping qualifies as "daredevil" stunt. What about venturing into the woods with inadequate gear? The recent so-called survivor man comes to mind, but A LOT of day hikers come in this category too.

- Who should make that decision? Believe me, rescue HQ wont have anything to do with that decision: They'll rescue anyone within their capabilities, no matter how stupid.

- What is the consequences of not being found worthy of rescue? Do you just leave 'em to die or do you haul them in and seek reimbursements?

Not saving someone you're capable of saving is obviously unacceptable. Seeking reimbursements has a lot of problems, one of them being that it raises the threshold of contacting authorities when you have trouble. I am very much against it.

When a rescue begins, no one has full command of the facts. Basically, all you know is that someone is in trouble; therefore you rescue.

On two occasions, our victims were promptly questioned, read their rights, handcuffed, and arrested. They did not pass GO, they did not get $200, they went directly to jail.

Oddly, one of those was a rare situation where we placed ourselves in genuine jeopardy in order to effect the rescue.

Can I take this opportunity to repost this link to an article from Portland Mtn Rescue discussing requiring PLBs for Mt Hood climbers, it also addresses the philosophy of expected and unexpected rescues, and who should pay - http://www.pmru.org/pressroom/headlines/20091213PMRStatementRegardingMissions.html.

Says it all for me.

Good points Mostlyharmless, like I said S and R will rescue anyone as they should, however I do feel for example that the punishment for example of the types who go over Niagara Falls in a barrell should be as harsh as possible mostly for needlessly endangering the lives of the rescuers.

Well, I respect your opinion but take my liberty to argue against something I disagree with

Here's some more food for thought:

* Rescuers need to practice. Picking up whatever remains of daredevils provides excellent, realistic training. (That also accounts for really expensive resources as helicopters. Most or all of the hours spent on rescue missions would otherwise be flown as traning missions. At least that's the case where I live).

* Although there are some risks inherited in rescue missions, those risks are
a) something they volunteer to expose themselves to (by choice of profession, or by active volunteering for a S&R team),
b) minimalized by a professional and highly skilled S&R leadership that WILL NOT expose their teams to neck breaking risks. In short, they know what they're doing.


In addition comes the ethical question of what is the definition of unacceptable and OK risk levels.

Although I disagree on the principle of harsh penalties for the unlucky dare devils I am not totally against the idea that the individual should pay for rescue for certain kind of activities. The most practical solution to this dilemma is to claim a guarantee (insurance or bank statement) to cover the cost of a rescue mission. This is common practice for the Govenor of Svalbard (Spitsbergen). Expeditions into far away regions will have to bring an emergency beacon and demonstrate either a bank guarantee or an insurance that will cover the cost of a helicopter rescue. The important distinction is that this is done BEFORE you start the expedition - it is not a punishment for some expedition that has some kind of trouble.

I'll defer to your experience , although I was thinking of the case of a case in Niagara Falls where the daredevil was rescued by firefighters....perhaps they get extra training because of where they work, but I am guessing they don't get the level of training that you do.

I vaguely remember one dying trying to rescue a barrell rider...I'll see if I can find a link.

It might be worth mentioning that in at least one jurisdiction with which I am familiar (National Park Service) charges are brought against, and costs are recovered from, folks who do really silly things. This is only done in extreme, very clear situations, for the reasons that MH has mentioned.

The NPS is making it clear in their orientation for hikers in the Grand Canyon, a real hotbed for rescues, that they are not legally obligated to effect a rescue, and that they may be so busy that Mommy may not be immediately at your side to kiss it and make it well.

Whoa - what were the charges???

I wasn't aware of any US jurisdiction where needing a rescue was a _criminal_ offense. Trespassing, and I can imagine not having various gear when heading into various situations, but just for needing a rescue is another thing entirely. Treating the issue as a civil matter is one thing but a criminal offense is on a different level.

Forgive me if I don't thank the rescuers next time and instead demand to speak to my attorney...

In Tucson, we don't mess around. "Failure to do right" will land you in the pokey.

Seriously, in one case, two gentlemen were fleeing deputies when they drove into the middle of a flooding wash and required rescue. We responded, extricated them from the stream, and the deputies took it from there.

In the second case, two men driving down a dirt road with their lights off at night, drove straight into a 100 foot deep vertical mine shaft.

Why were they driving at night with their lights out? They had just burglarized an adjacent mine building, a teaching facility of the School of Mines, University of Arizona.

They were in the shaft for three days and finally attracted attention by burning their tires. Our unit was summoned and I happened to be the first to rappel into the pit. My buddy, coming down later, had been told by a deputy that there was likely a criminal angle to the situation. Down in the pit we were so busy with patient care and avoiding the copious rock fall that we never had the opportunity to compare notes.

The one thing that saved us all from serious further injury was the vertical posture of their station wagon. We were able to shelter behind the very dented tail gate. Fortunately, their injuries were fairly minor and, in fact, had self stabilized over the three days since their fall; mostly they were dehydrated.

Our team on top quickly devised a rig that kept the haul rope clear of the sides of the pit, reducing the falling rock hazard significantly.

As I was hoisted out with one of the victims, he confided that he had a pistol in his boot. Well, this is Arizona. I thanked him for the info, thinking that I, too, might well attempt to save a treasured firearm if I were down in a mine.

When we arrived topside, our victims were interviewed by the deputies, mirandized, cuffed, and taken away. I am sure Pima County Jail never had more grateful inmates.

The point is that in a rapidly developing SAR operation, you rarely have all the facts available for analysis and informed decision making during the early stages, if ever. You just Go, and sort it out later.

I am [trained}, therefore I rescue.