Editorial About Charging For Rescue

Posted by: Jesselp

Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/16/09 01:55 PM

I thought folks might find this interesting.

Editorial - The Costs of Negligence

I know it's a topic that has been debated here before, and that the NY Times is not exactly based in a big "wilderness area" so may be a little removed from the debate, but interesting nonetheless.

Anyone know what the debate was like in New Hampshire before this new rule was implemented? How many people have actually been charged, and what the result has been?
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/16/09 05:22 PM

I suppose the next step will be demanding a rescue deposit before anybody is allowed to leave their house.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/16/09 09:57 PM

It doesn't say that every person who gets lost is going to be charged.

"Since 1999, it has billed them for the costs of rescue if their behavior was reckless. But in July, the standard was changed. If you find yourself in trouble thanks to your own negligence, a lower threshold of responsibility, then you also may end up paying the cost for being rescued."

I don't have any problem with that.

America has spawned an excellent crop of fools and idiots. People tend to think they can do anything, anywhere, and someone else is always going to bail them out and then thank them for the opportunity to do so.

Our government has done its very best to create a cradle-to-grave safety net to cover virtually every single stupid thing a person can do. For instance, every person injured while committing a criminal act can sue his victim. Why?

Maybe it's time to let people deal with their own stupidities.

Sue
Posted by: oldsoldier

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/16/09 10:01 PM

NH charges for gross negligence. I have been on a few searches out there over the years. Pretty much, if you go out there UNprepared, and put yourself in a predicament WELL over your head (not an accident, or getting caught in a REAL bad storm), they WILL charge you. Most places where people get stuck out there are hard to get to; extraction can take literally hours (I have participated in one that took over 6, and about 5 relay teams, to extract someone). This takes a LOT of manpower. And, some S & R folks like me, travel 3 hours to get these people. I am a volunteer; I get NO compensation for this. Thats wear & tear on my vehicle, time away from work, etc. You also have NH fish & game, local pd/fd, state pd, and, in some cases, the national guard. If your idea of a weekend backpacking trip in October to the Whites consists of jeans, a jean jacket, t shirt, and a rucksack full of beer, rest assured; you get rescued, it WILL cost you LOTS of money.
Posted by: 2005RedTJ

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/16/09 10:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Susan
Maybe it's time to let people deal with their own stupidities.


Amen. We live in a society nowadays where the stupid people are virtually bubble-wrapped to keep from hurting themselves. Warning labels that "Coffee Is Hot" are proof that the average person now is dumber than at any time in history.

Of course, our legal system allows lawsuits based on such things, but it wouldn't have been allowed in a day and age where you couldn't make the judge and jury believe that you honestly are too stupid to know that it's hot.
Posted by: OldBaldGuy

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/16/09 10:32 PM

"...America has spawned an excellent crop of fools and idiots. People tend to think they can do anything, anywhere, and someone else is always going to bail them out and then thank them for the opportunity to do so.
Our government has done its very best to create a cradle-to-grave safety net to cover virtually every single stupid thing a person can do. For instance, every person injured while committing a criminal act can sue his victim. Why?
Maybe it's time to let people deal with their own stupidities..."



You must be talking about CA, right?

If we could get people to be responsible for their own actions, this country (or at least a few states) could probably dig itself out of dept in no time at all...

Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Susan
if their behavior was reckless - thanks to your own negligence - may end up paying the cost for being rescued."


i day hike prepared. i'm sure i'm not alone in constantly being astounded by the total lack of preparation i see while out hiking.

my 2 cents worth = bill 'em for their negligence / recklessness / stupidity.

same goes for firebugs.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 01:24 AM

It always starts like this every time you lose something or get shafted by another insurance industry grab at your wallet.

They just re-wrote the law to make it easier to charge anybody who needs assistance.
Who defines what is negligent?
If you get your car stuck on a country road you can be billed for being negligent under this law. You should have known better than to wander off the pavement.

You are a dayhiker and get into trouble?
Well obviously you were not well enough prepared.
If you were well enough prepared you would not have needed any help, therefore you are negligent.

So just remember after they start charging you for rescue insurance whenever you buy a boat, an ATV, a hunting license or a park use permit that you were cheering for beating up the other guy.

As a society there are certain costs we bear, including the cost of having idiots amongst us.


Posted by: 2005RedTJ

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 02:14 AM

We had a somewhat related discussion the other day on an offroading board I'm on. I extract people when they get stuck, no matter whether they are deep in the woods or just off the side of the road. My only rule is that THEY hook up to whatever point on their vehicle they want to. I'll check it to make sure it looks structurally sound before I pull them out. But, if their vehicle gets damaged during the process, it's not my problem. THEY got stuck, THEY asked me to pull them out, and THEY made the connection to their own vehicle.

I've never charged anyone for pulling them out, I've never charged anyone for helping them repair their vehicle, I've never even charged for giving people parts out of my supply of spare parts. I figure what comes around goes around and one day I might need their help. Unlikely given the amount of tools, parts, and general preparedness on my part, but still possible.

That said, if someone is just repeatedly being an idiot, I might not help them. Only one time comes to mind. We were out at the offroad park and a few kids in a near-stock Jeep Cherokee tried a trail that my Jeep wouldn't stand a chance of making it up. (Think 4' tall straight vertical ledges for about 100' in a row) They destroyed their tierod and were trying to winch it out.

Several much older, very knowledgeable, experienced people tried helping and offering advice, but they wouldn't listen to anyone. They hooked to a 6" tree about 10' off the ground, nearly pulled the tree down on everyone, and wouldn't even listen to our advice about fixing it when they finally got it out. Finally, we just drove off and left them with it. Winch cable under high tension + stupid kids = high likelihood of death or serious injury.
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 01:49 PM

I'll say it again, when people are fearful they will be charged
for a search, it makes it harder for the searchers. The victim
will try extra hard to find their way out and in the process increase
the search area. Some even hide from searchers, hoping if they find
their way, they will plead they were not in need of assistance.
Posted by: Be_Prepared

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 02:44 PM

It's been a long time since I was active helping out SAR activities in the Whites, (mostly as a college kid volunteer being summoned from my cot at an AMC hut in the middle of the night cry). Back then, I think we all felt like we needed to be more self sufficient, and didn't really expect a quick evac or rescue if we messed up. We tended to travel in groups of at least 4 back then, none of this solo or pair stuff. Always felt like with 4, when one went down, one could stay with them, and the other 2 could hike out for help if we couldn't handle things ourself. Those were the only choices, no cell phones, sat phones, PLB's back then. Only technology we could usually count on were the trailhead sign-in sheets. If someone saw that you hadn't signed out, and there was a car in the trailhead lot, well, eventually someone might start lookign. We certainly have a lot of folks out on the mountains today that just assume they can make a call, and the cavalry will save them, quickly.

I still hike up there often, but, not as much in winter. The Avalanche Center reports are still always interesting to me. We were considering heading up for skiing this weekend, so I had glanced at the notes from one of the USFS Snow Rangers for this weekend, they are looking forward to the high temperature getting up to -15F, balmy! Fun, and interesting reading, especially love the part about your eyeballs freezing to the back of your eyelids...

-----[extract from Mt Washington Avalanche Center]
This weekend Americans will be celebrating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. throughout the country including here in the ravines. Our planned events include the annual polar bear plunge in the Cutler River and a dunk tank with your favorite caretakers. Unfortunately it looks like the brutal weather will keep the number of both participants and spectators to a minimum.

Truthfully, the weather has been absolutely brutal and most folks have decided to stay at home by the woodstove rather than freeze their brain on the Rockpile. Today I saw only two people on the mountain who weren't paid to be there. They looked like a well-prepared couple who were skinning up for a cold and squeaky run down the Sherbie. Even for the best prepared the weather is still pretty harrowing. When Jeff and I stood below Huntington today scanning the gullies with binoculars I felt all the signs of the arctic cold. The wind cut through my 17 layers of wool and synthetics to bite at my skin. A headache set in that made me feel like I had just tried to eat the famed Holy Cow Sundae in record-breaking time. When my eyes started to tear from the stinging cold, my eyelashes froze together. Good times I tell you.

The arctic air that is punishing us will hold tight through the first part of the holiday weekend and summit temps are supposed to climb to a whopping -15F tomorrow. By Sunday the mercury should break into the positive numbers as the cold Canadian air moves out of the region and we begin to be affected by the onshore flow of maritime air. This air will be far warmer and moister than what we've been dealing with and snow is forecasted for Sunday afternoon. Right now we're too far out to make predictions on snowfall but we'll keep our fingers crossed for a decent helping of snow enhanced by upslope energy and Winnipesaukee effect moisture.

With the cold air that has become firmly established in our region you need to be well-prepared if you're going to visit the mountains in the upcoming days. One gear malfunction can put you in a serious predicament so come prepared with the right stuff and the right mindset. Puffy jackets and fleece-lined shell pants are great pieces of equipment but don't neglect the rest of your body. Windproof hats and big warm mittens are two keys to happiness. Boots may be the most vital piece of equipment you'll don so don't take any shortcuts. Today was the first day of the season when I made the shift away from my leathers and into the plastics complete with supergaiters. I tend to run much warmer than the average humanoid and the majority of folks have made the switch to their plastic double boots much sooner. Lastly, don't forget your goggles. If you want any chance of poking your head above treeline you're going to need to keep your eyeballs from freezing to the back of your eyelids. If you think I'm kidding, just ask the person who I saw jogging with a pair of ski goggles on this morning in Gorham.

Wear the right gear, bring extra stuff in your pack and don't hesitate to call it quits when the time is right. The mountain doesn't care if this is your only three-day weekend during the winter season. Come on out and take in the beauty of hills but give due respect to their potential wrath. Be grateful for your ability to recreate and in the words of Dr. King "...let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire."
----
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 03:59 PM

Originally Posted By: clearwater
I'll say it again, when people are fearful they will be charged
for a search, it makes it harder for the searchers. The victim
will try extra hard to find their way out and in the process increase
the search area. Some even hide from searchers, hoping if they find
their way, they will plead they were not in need of assistance.


i wonder if any of the sar members out there ever had a rescuee tell them 'i'm sorry you found me.' grin
Posted by: ccl442

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 04:27 PM

I feel I need to chime in on this one.
I am a member of an active SAR/USAR team in Vermont. We are one of the prime responders for the state. When it comes to the Winderness SAR realm, charging people for rescues is long overdue. Im not advocating charging everyone, just the negligent or the ill prepared. Just about every person that we get called to "rescue" is ill prepared, not in physical shape, poor equipment or no equipment, does not know the terrain, etc. Maybe if the possiblity of getting charged for a rescue was there it would cause these people to take more personal responsibility. My generation has a serious lack of personal responsibility. The whole "Its not my fault, its theirs."
The cost that goes into one of these rescues is astounding. Most of these teams are volunteer but that doesnt mean that there are not costs. Every team still has to carry insurance, cost of fuel, team gear, vehicles, etc etc. Our team can be called to any corner of the state and has been. Also, these events can be of long durations, causing team members to miss work, family events and there is always the threat of injury to a team member. I understand both sides of this topic. However, for me the theory that if there is a charge people will not call does not fly. That arguement was used prior to ambulance servies billing for transports.
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 04:46 PM

The very last search I went on, the victim kept hiking, in
the dark,
despite telling him over the phone to stay put till we got
there. He was worried he would be billed and that bills would
increase the longer he was lost.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 04:56 PM

Originally Posted By: clearwater
I'll say it again, when people are fearful they will be charged
for a search, it makes it harder for the searchers. The victim
will try extra hard to find their way out and in the process increase
the search area. Some even hide from searchers, hoping if they find
their way, they will plead they were not in need of assistance.


That is one of the biggest problems when looking for small children, isn't it?
They have been taught not to speak to strangers and often are afraid they will be in trouble for getting lost so they hide from the searchers.
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: clearwater
The very last search I went on, the victim kept hiking, in the dark, despite telling him over the phone to stay put till we got there.

oh, he had a phone? how did sar get the call? from him? concerned relative? why did he / she / relative / friend call?

injury? lost? unprepared for the dark?

more details might help me understand this.

people seem to forget that a walk in the woods is not the same as a walk around the backyard.
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 05:07 PM

Originally Posted By: ccl442
Im not advocating charging everyone, just the negligent or the ill prepared. Just about every person that we get called to "rescue" is ill prepared, not in physical shape, poor equipment or no equipment, does not know the terrain, etc. Maybe if the possiblity of getting charged for a rescue was there it would cause these people to take more personal responsibility.

take responsibility themselves and their actions. they should bite the bullet and spend a night cold, in the dark. i'm sure the next time they'd go out much better prepared.

to clarify, an injury, illness, allergic reaction, etc. - no problem.

unprepared / irresponsible - for whatever reason - bill 'em.
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 05:18 PM

a quick net search found this - basically an ad - extolling the virtues of the microfix plb.

it cost the rescuee $270.00 - for a deputy sheriff's overtime.

the navy's helicopter / experience and sar personnel were free.

i suppose he'd gladly pay the money vs. try and rappel and then walk out on a broken leg.

my 2 cents.
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 05:19 PM

Originally Posted By: ccl442
Also, these events can be of long durations, causing team members to miss work, family events and there is always the threat of injury to a team member. I understand both sides of this topic. However, for me the theory that if there is a charge people will not call does not fly. That arguement was used prior to ambulance servies billing for transports.


Increasing the number of people charged for rescue can make
the search LONGER and more expensive, if folks are hiking trying to find their own way out. Someone walks 10 miles
and can increase the search area by 30 square miles.

People DO put off calling for help and try to figure it out
themselves, usually until darkness or weather increases the
hazards of the search. They may even call off rescues too early
as happened here.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/experienced_hiker_marathoner_d.html

Her friends called off the search the night before even tho
they weren't with the missing lady. Searchers on the scene the
next morning when the 3 re-called for help,
reported the 3 other hikers as being seemly worried about liability and very hesitant to talk with rescuers.

As far as ambulance rides go, how many times is transport
refused by the victim after the ambulance arrives? Who
pays then? Should we demand payment by the accident victim
who refuses the ambulance ride? In the backcountry can the
victim refuse help if they have lost communication? Shouldn't
they be able to refuse service too?






Posted by: Dagny

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 05:23 PM

Tough call. I've never needed an ambulance or fire truck but it never occurred to me that those who have should be charged for it -- even when they are in need because of their own negligence.

Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 05:42 PM

I am sure he would pay that. However people hear of searches
costing tens of thousands of dollars, and that is what they
worry about, enough that it might delay their calling for
help too long. Pride is enough of an issue in delayed calling.

Most searchers are volunteers. I think it goes against the
grain to charge someone when the majority of people helping are not looking for renumeration.


Articles about this topic.

Climbers
http://alpineinstitute.blogspot.com/2009/01/search-and-rescue-costs.html

Boaters
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article_view_articleid_973_display_full_

Search Team thoughts and policies
http://www.larimercountysar.org/faq.htm
"We believe that charging the people we help will only delay the call that requests our service, and time is always critical when people are lost and injured. "



Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 07:57 PM

People worry about numbers they can relate to.
A thousand, a hundred thousand or maybe even a million is a number they might be able to relate to, so they focus on it.
Billions and Trillions are just to big to understand.
It is the same thing with infrastructure. They get upset about a one million dollar bridge repair but fail to understand what not having a bridge there would cost them.

N.H. makes a lot of money from their outdoors recreation industry.
Let's be cheap about rescues.
Yup, lets make the back country only available to people with rescue insurance.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 08:52 PM

"Yup, lets make it back country only available to people with rescue insurance."

The problem is that many of the bozos don't learn. How many have you heard about that have been rescued more than once? Sometimes, the VERY NEXT DAY! Just what is it you think the world owes these guys?

You only speak of the cost to the so-called victim... almost like you're one of those who pull these bonehead stunts and expect to get pulled out of it for free. Volunteer or professional, what happens if a rescuer gets badly injured or killed trying to rescue some idiot? How much do you think it costs to care for a quadraplegic for the rest of his life? How about a funeral? How about supporting his little kids? Are the so-called victims going to ante-up then? No, they're not. They will just keep doing what they're doing, because they don't give a tinker's dam about anything but themselves.

There's just a lot of people who have short-range vision and long-range expectations... but only for themselves.

How about signs on the trails: "Be Stupid and Die". (Esp appropriate for NH.)

Sue
Posted by: JohnE

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 09:24 PM

So what's the solution? Calling people stupid clearly isn't one.

One can either come down on the side of more legislation or accept that with the notion of personal freedom comes some stupidity and shared responsibility that the community has to bear.

What other choices are there?

JohnE


Posted by: Dagny

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 09:32 PM

Maybe New Hampshire should apply for TARP funds.

I'm far less bothered by bailing out fools in the woods than the fools on Wall Street.

Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 09:32 PM

No Susan, you are missing the point.
There is a huge industry called tourism.

It relies on selling outdoor gear, locations, and opportunities for Bozos to go and risk their lives.

It employs a lot of people.
From tour operators to outdoor equipment sellers. It generates a lot of money for the State.

Like all industries it wants to externalize the cost of doing business.

(Buy a Jeep, but if you drive it off the pavement like it was sold to you for and you get it stuck you are suddenly a reckless or negligent individual.)

Rewriting the law like they did only helps to externalize the cost.

Another big industry is insurance.

Rewriting the law made it easier to create an insurance market.
It also (ironically) gives the future insurance providers an out from paying claims.

Whenever any of the business or government mouthpieces start spouting off about rugged individualism or personal responsibility you had better get a good grip on your wallet, because they are about to grab at it big time.

When industries and governments tell you something is for your good, or that it is the other guys fault, you should be very suspicious of the motives.
---
Paying for rescuing a few retards a year is far cheaper than what you are being pushed into.
In fact it should be covered out of business taxes if they wanted to be fair about it.

Rescue operations likely cost less than 1% of what advertising and selling the wonderful winter wonderland adventures to the morons does.
If you just let people die in the bush, or charge them big money when they screw up, you lose your winter tourist business.
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 11:02 PM

Originally Posted By: scafool
(Buy a Jeep, but if you drive it off the pavement like it was sold to you for and you get it stuck you are suddenly a reckless or negligent individual.)

ok. so if you get your jeep stuck - for whatever reason - the tow truck comes and hauls you out for free, right?

no. you gotta pay.

why should i pay to haul your jeep out of trouble?
Posted by: Dagny

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/17/09 11:33 PM

Reimbursing the cost of a wilderness rescue would bankrupt most people.

The fear of never being found ought to be punishment enough for most.

I've never heard of the same person needing to be rescued more than once. Maybe it's happened but I've never heard of it.
Posted by: Andrew_S

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 02:16 AM

Volunteer or professional, what happens if a rescuer gets badly injured or killed trying to rescue some idiot?

That's not what we're discussing here.

The issue is not charging the victim for the medical expenses of an injured searcher (for which, in any case, the searcher should be insured), but charging for the cost of the search. So enough with the emotional pleas, the poor little children, etc.

Neither are we talking about pulling jeeps out for free; we're talking about lifesaving rescue.

The points re rescue insurance and delayed calls for help are valid. There is a downside to making people pay for rescue.

Most people do agree that there's nothing wrong with charging people who are reckless, but who defines "reckless?" Some people think that whitewater canoeing is ipso facto reckless.

And when you lower the bar to "negligence," well, I can find you negligent every single time something goes wrong, if I want to. I'm not sure that's a good path to turn down.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 02:54 AM

Originally Posted By: bsmith
Originally Posted By: scafool
(Buy a Jeep, but if you drive it off the pavement like it was sold to you for and you get it stuck you are suddenly a reckless or negligent individual.)

ok. so if you get your jeep stuck - for whatever reason - the tow truck comes and hauls you out for free, right?

no. you gotta pay.

why should i pay to haul your jeep out of trouble?


You people are all so stuck on stuff instead of life it is amazing. The Jeep is just stuff.
You could leave the Jeep to rot for all I care.
I still would not just leave somebody to die simply because they were foolish enough to get a Jeep stuck.

You can not cure stupid, and so long as companies are selling 4x4s and the idea they are invincible in the winter wonderland you will have fools buying into it foolheartedly and going out getting their jeeps stuck.

So why should I subsidize the public cost of accidents which corporations like the makers of Jeep are creating for private profit?

If I follow your argument why not just quit doing search and rescue or any form of disaster relief at all.
If somebody is stupid enough to get lost, or to live in a hurricane, earthquake, fire or whatever zone they get what they deserve. (right?)

I mean If you are dumb enough to buy property in any of the Gulf States or the Mudwest you are no different than the Jeep driver and deserve to get washed away in the next hurricane or flood. (right?)

Posted by: 2005RedTJ

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 03:54 AM

Originally Posted By: scafool
Originally Posted By: bsmith
Originally Posted By: scafool
(Buy a Jeep, but if you drive it off the pavement like it was sold to you for and you get it stuck you are suddenly a reckless or negligent individual.)

ok. so if you get your jeep stuck - for whatever reason - the tow truck comes and hauls you out for free, right?

no. you gotta pay.

why should i pay to haul your jeep out of trouble?


You people are all so stuck on stuff instead of life it is amazing. The Jeep is just stuff.
You could leave the Jeep to rot for all I care.
I still would not just leave somebody to die simply because they were foolish enough to get a Jeep stuck.

You can not cure stupid, and so long as companies are selling 4x4s and the idea they are invincible in the winter wonderland you will have fools buying into it foolheartedly and going out getting their jeeps stuck.

So why should I subsidize the public cost of accidents which corporations like the makers of Jeep are creating for private profit?

If I follow your argument why not just quit doing search and rescue or any form of disaster relief at all.
If somebody is stupid enough to get lost, or to live in a hurricane, earthquake, fire or whatever zone they get what they deserve. (right?)

I mean If you are dumb enough to buy property in any of the Gulf States or the Mudwest you are no different than the Jeep driver and deserve to get washed away in the next hurricane or flood. (right?)



Exactly. There are too many people who think buying a 4WD vehicle is the be-all-end-all of it. "Look, I have a lever that says 4WD on it, now I'm all set!" They have no idea how to drive a vehicle in 4WD, a lot of them have never even had the vehicle in 4WD. They carry no extraction gear, no survival gear, no tools, most don't even bother to upgrade the vehicle by adding recovery hooks.

Wilderness survival is exactly the same situation. I spend a lot of time in the woods, and am amazed by the number of people I see out there who couldn't manage to build a fire to save their lives. Or manage to find water, or splint a broken leg or arm.

In today's society, as evidenced by the Hurricane Katrina aftermath and a lot of these wilderness rescues, we're living in a world where people expect someone to constantly bail them out when they do something stupid.
Posted by: Susan

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 04:37 AM

Andrew: "That's not what we're discussing here."

Oh, but it is.

What we're talking about here is the cost of the rescue of people who put themselves in precarious situations. If you were to total up all the costs of all the rescues for one year alone, in just one state, it's tremendous. ALL the costs, not just the immediately obvious ones. Some SAR outfits are operating in the red because they've run out of funds.

The problem is escalating over the years because all these twits KNOW that if they get into trouble, someone will fix it for them. People used to have some sense of responsibility, but this aura of entitlement that many people have now is getting old.


Dagny, here are three repeat offenders that I know of:

11-15-2004: Carl Skalak of Ohio was rescued by a Fort Drum helicopter from a campsite in the Adirondaks after he got trapped by heavy lake-effect snows. He had used his new PLB to call for help. The next day, he went back to the same area to retrieve his canoe, got stuck again, and used his PLB to call again. He was arrested the second time, probably for attempting to imitate an intelligent person.

4-8-2000: A man from Fairbanks AK was using his snowmobile to do some 'highmarking' (driving up the side of a mountain and turning back just before the machine bogs down). He was pulled out of the first avalanche by State Troopers and warned. Not long afterward, he was caught in another avalanche. He wasn't arrested, just taken to the morgue.

12-26-08: "Idiot is Repeat Rescue Fiasco" - He had to be rescued twice in 5 minutes. http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2008/12/26/34565_gold-coast-lead-story.html

Sue
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 04:44 AM

Originally Posted By: scafool
I still would not just leave somebody to die simply because they were foolish enough to get a Jeep stuck.

neither would i. but we're talking about charging that individual for the tow.

and if they're hiking, for the ride out.

Originally Posted By: scafool
You can not cure stupid, and so long as companies are selling 4x4s and the idea they are invincible in the winter wonderland you will have fools buying into it foolheartedly and going out getting their jeeps stuck.

yep. they pay for the tow charge, don't they?

Originally Posted By: scafool
If I follow your argument why not just quit doing search and rescue or any form of disaster relief at all.

i think we're now talking apples and oranges. disaster relief?

Originally Posted By: scafool
I mean if you are dumb enough to buy property in any of the Gulf States or the Mudwest you are no different than the Jeep driver and deserve to get washed away in the next hurricane or flood. (right?)

well, for me, yes, i do not like having to pay for those who rebuild in flood zones or fire areas.

in an emergency or disaster, everyone gets out. it's those that put others lives at risk through negligence or stupidity that i don't feel sorry for.

charge 'em.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 05:11 AM

Originally Posted By: bsmith
Originally Posted By: scafool
I still would not just leave somebody to die simply because they were foolish enough to get a Jeep stuck.

neither would i. but we're talking about charging that individual for the tow.

and if they're hiking, for the ride out.

Originally Posted By: scafool
You can not cure stupid, and so long as companies are selling 4x4s and the idea they are invincible in the winter wonderland you will have fools buying into it foolheartedly and going out getting their jeeps stuck.

yep. they pay for the tow charge, don't they?

Originally Posted By: scafool
If I follow your argument why not just quit doing search and rescue or any form of disaster relief at all.

i think we're now talking apples and oranges. disaster relief?

Originally Posted By: scafool
I mean if you are dumb enough to buy property in any of the Gulf States or the Mudwest you are no different than the Jeep driver and deserve to get washed away in the next hurricane or flood. (right?)

well, for me, yes, i do not like having to pay for those who rebuild in flood zones or fire areas.

in an emergency or disaster, everyone gets out. it's those that put others lives at risk through negligence or stupidity that i don't feel sorry for.

charge 'em.


Funny, I thought we were talking about the cost of SAR for people in life threatening situations.

How foolish of me to think we were talking about the cost of rescuing their junk.

Now tell me why I should worry about saving your life if you live in a dangerous area or sometimes do foolish things.
You are obviously negligent if you do that.

Why shouldn't I just let natural evolution function in you and your family's case?
It would cost me a lot less money than paying for an emergency response team.

How about lost boaters and pilots?
They obviously put themselves into danger. Definitely negligent behavior regarding their own safety.
It certainly is not my fault they were on the water or in the air.

Why should I pay for finding anybody.
In fact why should I do anything for anybody else?
Posted by: JohnE

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 05:17 AM

So again I ask, what is the solution?

We can all agree that some people are stupid, some people will buy a 4WD vehicle and get into trouble with it, that some people are stupid enough to need to be rescued multiple times and so on and so forth. I have no doubt that given enough time we could find literally thousands of occasions where people doing stupid things have resulted in disaster, but how do we fix things?

I'd suggest that anyone who thinks that it's not society's responsibility to help those in need, or that are tired of paying for things that they don't agree with should start by reading up on the concept of "the social contract".

"the more fortunate need the beggar as the beggar needs the the more fortunate..."
Some Buddhist

JohnE
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 05:47 AM

I think one of the things that might help is understanding how small the cost of S&R is compared to the income generated by the outdoor recreation industry.

Sure the cost of one rescue mission for one individual looks big, but you have thousands of people hiking, camping, hunting, 4x4ing and every other activity under the sun.
Those people are all paying out money to equipment dealers, lodges, restaurants, resorts and to governments for licenses and permits.

I think rescuing people who happen to do foolish things should just be counted as part of the cost of doing business.
If you don't do that you really risk hurting the tourism sector of your economy.

In the last New Hampshire State $10.4 billion two-year budget, they refused to approve $100 thousand in funding for Fish and Game's SAR services, expecting it to be paid for out of the fishing and hunting license fees.

Now note that the outdoor recreation industry in New Hampshire alone:
Supports 53,000 jobs across New Hampshire
• Generates $261 million in annual state tax revenue
• Produces nearly $4 billion annually in retail sales and services across New
Hampshire – accounting for 7.8% of gross state product.

And that they were too cheap in that State to come up with a mere $50 thousand a year to balance the funding for SAR services.

Consider also that deliberately underfunding public services is a standard ploy in campaigns to privatize those services.
Posted by: 2005RedTJ

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: scafool
I think one of the things that might help is understanding how small the cost of S&R is compared to the income generated by the outdoor recreation industry.

Sure the cost of one rescue mission for one individual looks big, but you have thousands of people hiking, camping, hunting, 4x4ing and every other activity under the sun.
Those people are all paying out money to equipment dealers, lodges, restaurants, resorts and to governments for licenses and permits.

I think rescuing people who happen to do foolish things should just be counted as part of the cost of doing business.
If you don't do that you really risk hurting the tourism sector of your economy.

In the last New Hampshire State $10.4 billion two-year budget, they refused to approve $100 thousand in funding for Fish and Game's SAR services, expecting it to be paid for out of the fishing and hunting license fees.

Now note that the outdoor recreation industry in New Hampshire alone:
Supports 53,000 jobs across New Hampshire
• Generates $261 million in annual state tax revenue
• Produces nearly $4 billion annually in retail sales and services across New
Hampshire – accounting for 7.8% of gross state product.

And that they were to cheap in that State to come up with a mere $50 thousand a year to balance the funding for SAR services.

Consider also that deliberately underfunding public services is a standard ploy in campaigns to privatize those services.


I think a balance needs to be found where people are charged only if they are in need of rescue due to their own negligence. Unforseen circumstances can place anyone in peril no matter how prepared they are.

That said, I think education would go a long way toward solving the problem. A lot of people have been coddled so much their entire lives, that they really don't have any idea of the trouble they can get themselves into by being unprepared. I see it all the time, people with no gear, tools, parts. What kills me is when someone has to borrow a tool from me and a month later the same person has to borrow the same tool from me again. Common sense isn't as common as you'd think.

At my work, we offer service agreements on the systems we install, some customers see the need and pay the extra $, some choose not to get one. If you have a service agreement, just about everything gets fixed for free (both parts and labor). But, there are certain things the service agreement doesn't cover. "Acts of God", consumables such as batteries, negligence, remodeling damage, etc...
Posted by: Brangdon

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: 2005RedTJ
I think a balance needs to be found where people are charged only if they are in need of rescue due to their own negligence.
Why?

Is this about raising funds (in which case, why pick on just the negligent)? Or about deterrence (in which case, surely the negligent are the ones least likely to be deterred by the cost of rescue, given that they weren't deterred by the chance of dying if the rescue didn't arrive in time - these people aren't really planning ahead)? Or is this mostly because the rescuers want revenge, or at least satisfaction, from seeing negligent people punished for stupidity?
Posted by: Dagny

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/18/09 05:14 PM

Rather than just focus on after-the-fact punishment of those who get lost or stranded, more could be done to prevent people from going in unprepared in the first place.

Better signage, "10 essentials" postings at trailheads, campgrounds and hotels near wilderness areas. A one-pager on preparedness could be part of a rental car's literature.

Public education on preparedness (primarily free media) -- especially in areas like New Hampshire that market their wilderness to tourists -- would save lives.

How big of a problem is this? Anyone know how many people required Search-and-Rescue assistance in 2007 or 2008?

Are we talking here about tragedies like the Kim family's car getting stuck in Oregon a couple years ago?

There but for the grace of God a lot of folks could have gone. Including people on this forum, most of whom are uncommonly knowledgeable of and interested in preparedness or we wouldn't be here.

I'm pretty prepared but I've also been lucky.

Posted by: 2005RedTJ

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 12:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Brangdon
Originally Posted By: 2005RedTJ
I think a balance needs to be found where people are charged only if they are in need of rescue due to their own negligence.
Why?

Is this about raising funds (in which case, why pick on just the negligent)? Or about deterrence (in which case, surely the negligent are the ones least likely to be deterred by the cost of rescue, given that they weren't deterred by the chance of dying if the rescue didn't arrive in time - these people aren't really planning ahead)? Or is this mostly because the rescuers want revenge, or at least satisfaction, from seeing negligent people punished for stupidity?


Because it goes to the educational aspect of it. I truly think a lot of people who find themselves in need of rescue had no idea what they were getting into. People nowadays are stupid. If they go unprepared and get charged for their own rescue, at least there's a CHANCE they will either not do it again, or be more prepared next time.

And no, it's not about raising funds per se, as much as it's about offsetting the cost that should not be borne by the general tax-paying public for one person's stupidity or unpreparedness.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 02:37 AM


I am sorry if I seem to be arguing with you Red, that is really not my intention.

We live in a world of idiots and morons.

It is easy to get upset with the rest of them, but often enough we find ourselves being one of the idiots and morons too.

Editorialists like the one who wrote the original newspaper article make it worse by stirring up our moral indignation and getting us attacking each other instead of working out good solutions.

And Education doesn't seem to work, or at least it only works to some degree.
If you look at a lot of these cases they deliberately ignored warning signs, even moving barricades out of their way to place themselves in danger.
These are the "It is easier to get forgiveness than get permission!" type of people.

As I said before, you can't cure stupid.
It is part of the nature of the human herd.

And billing them for their own rescue often just results in extra costs like lawyer's fees because they simply don't pay the judgments.

I think they should be charged,
but they should be charged with reckless endangerment and attempted suicide or something like that which earns them jail time instead of just billed for a few dollars (that they often walk away from paying anyhow).
Maybe we should make them wear a sign saying "I am an idiot!" for a year too.

Now if we just accepted the actual SAR costs as a minor cost of doing business for the recreation industry, and funded it like we should it would be a much better solution than trying to bill the victims of their own idiocy.
Posted by: oldsoldier

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 03:57 AM

Dagny touches on a point; most people here prepare for something they will likely never encounter. Why? Cuz e've gone through the scenario in our heads dozens of times. Most of us here dont go out unprepared. We have learned through our own lives, and through others' experiences, what we need to get through a situation; to make an uncomfortable night a good story later down the road, rather than a tragedy on the news. This is something these people who are negligent fail to do; they dont take into account the "what if" scenarios. That in itself isnt negligent; going out into the wilderness totally unprepared is though.
Posted by: 2005RedTJ

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 03:59 AM

Originally Posted By: scafool
I think they should be charged,
but they should be charged with reckless endangerment and attempted suicide or something like that which earns them jail time instead of just billed for a few dollars (that they often walk away from paying anyhow).
Maybe we should make them wear a sign saying "I am an idiot!" for a year too.


Now that I can agree with 100%, especially the sign. Like the guy who parasailed onto the Statue of Liberty, arrested, lesson learned.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 04:23 AM

The basic premise and ideas of charging people for their own mistakes and lack of judgment go beyond the SAR community. Many Fire Departments, Forestry agencies, Park agencies etc have grappled with this very complex issue.

When I was a fire fighter, this subject came up many times not only with ourselves but with the local government and their legal counsel. Simply put, there is no easy answer to any of this. Knowledgeable people in emergency services have all seen or heard the same type of responses as posted here and other places for years and and collectively know these will not work otherwise these ideas would of been implemented as law already.

That being said, there was a discussion on one of the fire fighters forums a few months back where a couple of localities had implemented a fee for some emergency services based on the person's neglect....now it is up to the courts (and not the just the United Sates) to decide whether these types of fees are valid based on whether the person is guilty of negligence. These types of cases will wind through the court systems for years and it the outcome remains to be seen...
Posted by: yeti

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 01:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Susan
America has spawned an excellent crop of fools and idiots.


It's more than just America. As a species we show a certain predilection towards mindless behavior. Sometimes, I wonder how we continue to thrive! wink

I wonder though, what might be more valuable... having someone pay for their rescue, or having someone as an example to pick apart and show how the behavior was stupid? It would seem the latter would prove more valuable. Plus, and I hate to say it, but lives are lives...and if we set up a system where people REFUSE to ask for help for fear of the financial outcome, we set up a system that affects far more in the way of lives (family?) than what could prove to be a teachable moment.

Yes, people feel far too secure and myopic. But ignorance can be overcome, stupidity can't. How many are we **really** prepared to see suffer and/or die just because they're stupid? How much humanity are we prepared to toss? I just don't see any good solutions with these types of things. Flash emotion makes me **want** to turn around and walk away. I just can't do it and don't know if I could live with myself if I did.


Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 02:21 PM

this is the new hampshire law as found through a link at the nh fish and game website:

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

now, does this alter the discussion?

i suspect no one would argue with (a) or (b).

even if you are reckless (c), it would only set you back 10k.

and for intentional (c) - my 2 cents says bill 'em double.
Posted by: JohnE

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 05:15 PM

I apologise if this gets posted twice.

Those who want to start charging for rescue should realize that they are also opening the door for more litigation. If you're gonna charge me you better perform.

Same thing goes for the fire department and SAR, if you're gonna charge for your services, you better perform lest you be sued for negligence.

Someone wrote earlier that charging fees is a way of not charging the community at large for an individual's mistakes, it's a short leap from that position to the one where individuals start to refuse to pay for services that they don't use, ie, childless couples shouldn't have to pay for schools, pacifists shouldn't have to pay for wars, etc. Again I go back to the idea of "community" and the social contract.

JohnE
Posted by: Dagny

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 05:58 PM

That's an awfully broad catch-all provision:

(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.

This thread is a very good discussion of a difficult issue.

Crafting a definition to carve out the grossly negligent fools deserving of legal sanction is akin to defining pornography. We know them when we see them but a bright-line legal definition is elusive.

And I would like to be exempt from taxes for schools the kids I don't have don't use.

And I'd be pleased to be taxed for dog parks we don't have.

Oh well, that's why we have a democratic process.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: bsmith
this is the new hampshire law as found through a link at the nh fish and game website:

153-A:24 Responsibility for Public Agency Response Services. –
I. A person shall be liable for response expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person:
(a) Negligently operates a motor vehicle, boat, off highway recreational vehicle, or aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled drug and thereby proximately causes any incident resulting in a public agency response;
(b) Takes another person or persons hostage or threatens to harm himself or another person, thereby proximately causing any incident resulting in an appropriate public agency response; or
(c) Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response.
II. A person's liability under this subdivision for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000 for any single public agency response incident.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

now, does this alter the discussion?

i suspect no one would argue with (a) or (b).

even if you are reckless (c), it would only set you back 10k.

and for intentional (c) - my 2 cents says bill 'em double.


Apparently they wrote it so the person they rescued has to be found guilty of a crime in court first.

So is the billing for services a criminal case, a civil suit (torte for damages) or getting billed for unsolicited services.
If it is criminal then that brings up double jeopardy. You can not be charged for the same crime twice.
If it is a torte action than it is just like every other small claims civil suit which lands us at whether the person receiving the services had them forced on him against their will.
New Hampshire Fish and Game might be opening themselves up for counter suits.
Negative billing is against the law.

This law also opens it up for privatized rescue insurance and privatized search and rescue operators who can even bill for rescuing people against their will.
Since it is now a billable service then trying to deny private operators the right to compete would be unfair business practices.

Say goodbye to SAR and say hello to prepaid rescue plans where you only get the rescue you can afford.

I think the only people who will ever make any money from this are lawyers and insurance agencies.
Posted by: Andrew_S

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 07:36 PM

bsmith, thanks for bringing some facts into this, but you missed this part:

206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery.

I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department’s expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.


See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/hb1648.html

The passage you posted dates from 1999, and its standard of recklessness or intent essentially means that you only get nailed if you wilfully ignored warnings, correct practices, etc. -- that's recklessness. Most people would find this reasonable.

The new language allows you to be billed for the full costs, based on the department's judgment that you were negligent (not grossly negligent; merely negligent). This is an administrative decision; you don't get a court hearing. A bureaucrat decides.

There is no guidance as to what constitutes negligence.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 10:34 PM

I've posted my opinions on this forum about this topic so much now I don't want to clutter up the server with anymore of it, but here goes anyways.

The bottom line is I really don't like the notion of paying for other people's stupidity. Anything that would limit my liability for the worthless actions of others is a good thing. If a person dies in the wilderness for lack of good sense, I don't reckon that concerns me any, but preventing that at any cost, I take issue. Putting other people in harm's way to save these idiots, I take issue. Don't go in the big woods or out on the big water if you can't afford self extraction. If that means paying an insurance premium or subscribing to a service ahead of time, however expensive that may be, then it is far better than making me foot the bill. That'd be like finishing a meal at a restaurant and then expecting me to pay for it just because I am the next one to sit at the same table after you left.

There's lots of things I'd like to do in life, except for the fact that I can't afford it, and I don't think anyone else should have to pay for my trip to South Africa to go shoot a water buffalo or some such. How hard a concept is that to grasp? If an idiot is going to compound his trouble by refusing rescue, then let him sign the disclaimer and he can be on his merry way, and we will dig him out of the snow and mud in the springtime, provided his loved ones will foot the bill for his recovery.

Yes, I have little sympathy for the ignorant and the foolish in such matters, call me practical, or an ass, or whatever, but I prefer my money be spent on more important things, like taking care of my own family. I also feel that being in a community means being a responsible member of that community, and going on an adventure ill-prepared or otherwise taking unnecessary risks that put the welfare of the whole in jeopardy should disqualify one from being a member any longer, and exonerate the rest from having to bail their dumb hide out.

Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 11:07 PM

Funny, that is the same way I feel about auto insurance.

If you are crazy enough to be on a highway you deserve whatever you get, after all, we all know how dangerous it is to be on a highway.
Why should I be forced to support the insurance industry if I am a safe driver and accidents only happen to others?
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 11:57 PM

andrew_s:

thank you for that.

i didn't miss it - it isn't / wasn't there on the state of new hampshire, fish and game department, outdoor recreation sub-heading, safe hiking sub-sub heading, under 'there and back' is the link to exactly what i copied and pasted.

sorry, not my fault the state doesn't have up-to-date info on their website.

i have no clue as to who or what agency extracts people in new hampshire. in reading this law i would - foolishly - assume if fish and game is not involved then you wouldn't be charged.

in my county, sar is volunteer in conjunction with the county sheriffs department.

in other california areas the coast guard or military may supply the choppers.

and again, thanks for the update.
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/19/09 11:57 PM

amen, ben!

again, if you are willing to pay a tow truck to extract your vehicle because you are unable to extract it yourself, what's wrong with paying someone to extract you if you are unable to extract yourself and at the same time you are putting other's lives and resources in jeopardy negligently?

may be oversimplifying, but i think the analogy fits.

no one seems to complain about ambulance fees when one is injured, and yet it is so much cheaper to sign the ambulance's "against medical advice" paper and take a taxi to the e.r. - under the right circumstances, of course.

and as for education - i just did a quick visit to several camping / hiking / outdoors vendors - and they each had links to 'ten essentials' or other sites that would aid the beginner. the education is there. you only have to take advantage of it.

negligently.

depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is. wink
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/20/09 12:19 AM

Sound like we end up with the IRS of search and rescue. A bureaucrat gets to decide if a SAR victim is negligent or not,
gets to bill them, charge interest if they can't pay on time,
then the poor ones get thrown in debtors prison.

Great, I'd like to be part of that.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/21/09 02:04 AM

simply put, if you can't pay, don't play. Hiking in the big woods is a privilege, just like hunting, or fishing, or driving a car. People have to pay extra to do some of these things because there's a risk and a liability involved, ergo, a duty owed. The tort behind driving without a license is negligence, which is as it ought to be for hunting, fishing, or other similar activities.

Look, I don't like all the extra rules and regulations anymore than the next guy. But the fact is we live in a society now dominated by litigation and regulation, and thanks to the new administration, it is likely only to get worse. It must be fair for all, or else it is discriminatory, and I have a problem with that, especially when I am on the receiving end.
Posted by: JohnE

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/21/09 07:48 PM

I always thought that hiking/walking on public lands was a right...given that they're owned by the people and all. When the day comes that walking is considered a privilege, I'm outta here.

JohnE
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/21/09 08:40 PM

As it stands where I volunteer, the rescued and the volunteers more than cover the costs of SAR, in fact spend additional tens of thousands of
dollars and hundreds of hours of time in education of the public
as well. Safety videos on avalanche, grade school and high school survival trainings etc.

Many people have a sense of giving back.
Most victims donate what they can afford, in fact the whole SAR
organization here was started by and is rife with people who
have been aided or had family that has been helped. I doubt many
of them would be volunteering if they had been handed a bill
at the end of their rescue.

Most searchers I know don't want people charged except in the most
reckless cases say involving criminal activities.

Things are working well now. Why would you want to replace that
with more governmental crap?



Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 02:21 AM

Originally Posted By: clearwater
As it stands where I volunteer, the rescued and the volunteers more than cover the costs of SAR..

i really do sincerely appreciate the time you spend volunteering to rescue the unfortunate.

the question i have is : who pays for the chopper? nevada county or the military or a private entity that has an arrangement with the county?

i think this thread suggests that the cost of the extraction - except for those who freely volunteer their time - should be borne by the rescuee if - and a big IF - found negligent in their actions.

the cost to run a chopper and its crew is quite substantial, and with tax revenue shrinking due to decreased property values and subsequent decrease in property tax values, that cost must be evaluated in the harsh light of reality.

fee for service - it is becoming a way of life here.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 03:55 AM

BSmith, do you mean just like the SAR in New Hampshire?

Something about the health services.

In early 2003 Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome appeared. in Asia. It spread around the world very rapidly
It spread so rapidly because it traveled with infected and contagious airline passengers.
People died of it in Canada. The World Health Organization was quarantining airports and considering quarantining countries.
We had Hospitals in Toronto closed to the public because of it.

The effect it had on the Airlines and on Tourism was amazing.
Major conferences were being canceled, people were not flying to their vacation destinations.

Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome had very large economic impacts everywhere.
Asia, North America, Australia, Europe, and almost anywhere else you might fly to.

Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome was the closest thing to a modern plague we have ever seen.
People forgot about it, and you can find only a few references to it, but we only escaped having a world wide epidemic worse than the 1918 Influenza epidemics by pure dumb luck.

Before the Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak we had nothing from our Conservative Govt about health care except the cost and that they needed to have user fees and privatization.
After Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome Health care in Canada suddenly got a lot more funding everywhere except Alberta.
In USA the Centers for Disease Control suddenly received new and larger budgets.

In the USA you have private insurance plans that are very profitable.
They will not stop their propaganda campaigns to privatize all services.
Not even if 25% of Americans came down with the next modern version of the plague.

Now just try to wrap your head around the idea that chronically underfunding Medical Services has nothing to do with morality or justice.
The abuses you keep hearing about are largely myths and the few abuses that do happen are far less than 1%.

What it does have to do with is Business and the same corporate leaders who crashed your banking system trying to get their hands deeper into your pockets.
They don't care if you live or die. They only care if you pay.

If you are not sitting on the board of a major service corporation then every time you yell that other people should pay for services you are begging the corporate board members to steal your wallet too.

This is real economics.
EDIT:
And the same economics apply your Search and Rescue in case you didn't get it the first time around!

(Not your ideologically justified Free Market Fluff.)
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 04:11 AM

Quote:
They don't care if you live or die. They only care if you pay.


I have just watched a BBC Panorama documentary this evening on this very issue and I must say I was shocked and appalled by the inequality of Health Care across the demographic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gvflg/Panorama_What_Now_Mr_President/

Posted by: Homer

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 04:15 AM

Wasn't BSmith talking about Search and Rescue(SAR), not the disease SARS?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Homer
Wasn't BSmith talking about Search and Rescue(SAR), not the disease SARS?


You are correct....it was originally a discussion on SAR (search and rescue) not sure why someone hi-jacked this thread to medical SARS.
Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 05:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Sherpadog
Originally Posted By: Homer
Wasn't BSmith talking about Search and Rescue(SAR), not the disease SARS?


You are correct....it was originally a discussion on SAR (search and rescue) not sure why someone hi-jacked this thread to medical SARS.


The Hijack was to the parallel between what is happening with SAR funding and what happened with medical funding in Canada and the CDCs in the USA until the business community suddenly realized that underfunding disease control was threatening their businesses.

The similarity in the initials was just a coincidence.
So it is not even a real hijack.

Read and think about the text of the message instead of just the similar acronyms.

I guess I will have to go back and edit in the full name of the pneumonia like disease syndrome so some people don't get too confused.

Edit:
I wish somebody would hijack the tread though, or start a new one.
Posted by: benjammin

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 02:44 PM

Access to all public lands is a privilege, not a right. Agencies can close public lands to all access at will, or require permit access only. Parks can and do charge admission fees.

Public lands are regulated resources, and have been since Teddy Roosevelt's day.

Nowhere in the bill of rights or any ammendments will you find anything stating that we as individual citizens have a right to enter or occupy public lands.

JohnE, I sincerely hope you do not leave.

I note that the recent Mt. Hood recovery of a dead hiker utilized Blackhawk helicopters owned by the National Guard. Last I remember, the National Guard is paid for out of government funds. I have yet to hear that the survivor was billed for the service. That means every citizen of Oregon gets to pay for their mistake.
Posted by: LeeG

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 06:54 PM

How much does extraction by a national guard helicopter really cost? They already own it. They are already paying the guys who are flying it. It will incur some wear and tear during the time it is aloft and use some fuel. That is a pretty minor cost compared even to what that person will pay in sales tax during the remainder of his life.

Consider also that most of the money that goes to maintain public areas comes from people that never use them. Should each park be required to finance its entire operation solely from the revenues it generates? Where do you draw the line? If S&R becomes something that you have to pay extra for, does that mean you can sue them for not providing a specific level of service?

I really think that the Law of Unintended Consequences will really make several unwanted appearances if we head too far down this path.

Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 07:26 PM

Three kind choppers used here (Northern CA).

Military - Naval, Coast Guard
They use rescues as part of their training, we often have them
out on our trainings too. This is paid for by taxes either
way. If there was no rescue, they would be doing mock rescues
etc. and spending the same amount of money.

State Highway Patrol
Tax dollars from the state. Somewhat similar to the military,
they would have the choppers in the air anyway, tho unlike the military there could be overtime pay for the pilots.

Private Ambulance
The person who rides, pays.

The military ones are the most capable, but not always available. We most often see Highway Patrol on searches.

I see SAR like the fire department, its part of what I think
should be covered by taxes, but should make use of volunteers
as much as can be done. Most house fires probably can be prevented by forethought, but I don't think the unfortunate
should then get a bill after their house burns. Unless they
are arsonists.

Most search and rescue recovery's are by foot or snowmobile/ATV
anyway. The gas and other gear is paid for by the volunteers and funds from donations.



Posted by: scafool

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 08:05 PM

The helicopters have to be flown anyhow, if for no other reason than to keep the pilot's air hours current.
You are constantly flying Blackhawks along the Canadian border too. They are supposed to prevent grain and beef smugglers from driving over the border across the empty wheat fields.

These helicopters are extremely well equipped for locating any warm bodies.
The cost of diverting one from the patrolling the Alberta/Montana border (as an example) for a day is pretty minimal.

I doubt if the cattle, coyotes and pronghorns would miss being recorded with the thermal imaging cameras for one day.
Posted by: Desperado

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/22/09 08:11 PM

While not SAR, the local air ambulance service is expensive. I know a pilot for careflight. He told me it is about $500.00 per hour just to operate the helo. That doesn't include any pilots, nurses or supplies. They have a membership program that is like $145.00 for 5 years for a whole family.

If they are called to get you, it is $10,000.00 when they go light on the wheels. From there on, the sky is the limit (pun not intended).

Seems like $145.00 is pretty cheap to me.
Posted by: ki7he

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/24/09 01:47 AM

Originally Posted By: bsmith
the question i have is : who pays for the chopper? nevada county or the military or a private entity that has an arrangement with the county?


Originally Posted By: benjammin
I note that the recent Mt. Hood recovery of a dead hiker utilized Blackhawk helicopters owned by the National Guard. Last I remember, the National Guard is paid for out of government funds. I have yet to hear that the survivor was billed for the service. That means every citizen of Oregon gets to pay for their mistake.


It comes out of the training budget of the military. You have to bear in mind that the chopper crew are required a certain number of hours a month of training. That's the same if they're using it for SAR, public affair events or generally just flying around burning fuel. If you talk to them they'ed rather be spend that time doing something useful like SAR or medical evacuation. It costs the same either way so you can't always count that as a cost of the search.
Posted by: bsmith

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/24/09 02:17 AM

Originally Posted By: ki7he
Originally Posted By: bsmith
the question i have is : who pays for the chopper? nevada county or the military or a private entity that has an arrangement with the county?

Originally Posted By: benjammin
I note that the recent Mt. Hood recovery of a dead hiker utilized Blackhawk helicopters owned by the National Guard. Last I remember, the National Guard is paid for out of government funds. I have yet to hear that the survivor was billed for the service. That means every citizen of Oregon gets to pay for their mistake.


It comes out of the training budget of the military. You have to bear in mind that the chopper crew are required a certain number of hours a month of training. That's the same if they're using it for SAR, public affair events or generally just flying around burning fuel. If you talk to them they'ed rather be spend that time doing something useful like SAR or medical evacuation. It costs the same either way so you can't always count that as a cost of the search.

ain't necessarily so, joe.
the most recent extraction i'm aware of ALMOST took place on mt hood by a national guard blackhawk.

from the register-guard here.
"An Oregon Army National Guard Blackhawk helicopter was called to airlift the pair off the mountain, authorities said, but was recalled after one climber was reported dead and the other had climbed down on his own."

so it appears to me they had better things to do - or were conscious of the cost and safety of their crew - than to extract a person who was already dead.

point is, dollars count.

the local crew in my area (sheriffs dept) flies about one mission per day - law enforcement, sar, medical rescue, marijuana (!) extraction from the forest - etc. otherwise, they are not just "flying around", they are at base. i know. i just called and asked.
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/24/09 03:15 AM

It ain't about the dollars. Its about risk. The MAST choppers
don't do recovery of bodies.
Posted by: ki7he

Re: Editorial About Charging For Rescue - 01/24/09 04:23 AM

Originally Posted By: bsmith

ain't necessarily so, joe.
the most recent extraction i'm aware of ALMOST took place on mt hood by a national guard blackhawk.

from the register-guard here.
"An Oregon Army National Guard Blackhawk helicopter was called to airlift the pair off the mountain, authorities said, but was recalled after one climber was reported dead and the other had

so it appears to me they had better things to do - or were conscious of the cost and safety of their crew - than to extract a person who was already dead.

point is, dollars count.


I thought the question was about who pays for military choppers when they're used in a SAR mission. I'm not sure what point you're making to the statement I made? Are you suggesting that someone else, other than the tax payers, are paying for the missions? That would be nice, I guess, but that's just not so.

Originally Posted By: bsmith
the local crew in my area (sheriffs dept) flies about one mission per day - law enforcement, sar, medical rescue, marijuana (!) extraction from the forest - etc. otherwise, they are not just "flying around", they are at base. i know. i just called and asked.


Now you're talking about a local sherrifs office. I can't speak to that. The original question was about military choppers not civilian law enforcement. As someone else mentioned, the military doesn't do do body recovery (or law enforcement for that matter). Every mission they do assist on has to first be approved by the Pentagon before they can participate (at least that's how the Idaho National Guard operates). They generally can only assist in medical related missions. Maybe that's why you get the impression they only fly missions they feel like it or are only flying high profile missions.