Baxter State Park SAR asking for $10,000

Poor decisions led to a search for an individual trying to summit Mt Katahdin solo. Park officials seeking reimbursement for SAR expenses. Are more places starting to collect on SAR action that is the result of unprepared people putting others at risk trying to find them?

Bangor Daily News - Hiker on the hook for $10,000

Mt Katahdin, alone, winter, storm approaching, never signed in at trailhead, or with rangers...

So the Park service wants to charge for a National Guard Helicopter expense?

I don't think there is anything new or novel about this policy. National Parks have been billing similarly careless visitors for several years. The vast majority of people getting into trouble are not billed. These bozos should probably pay up.

Interesting that the helo time was not chalked up to "training,"which in my experience, is the usual practice.

I have never understood the many users of this forum and their fixation of such words as "natural selection event,", "Darwin Award candidate" and so on. This fixation is one of the many reasons I do not frequent and contribute to this forum as much as I like to.

However to answer your question. Not all SAR teams support charging for rescue. In the area just west of where we now live, the biggest and busiest SAR team does not support charging for rescue. I happen to agree with this SAR team decision not to charge.

2 hours of a national guard blackhawk is probably the majority of the $10,000.

In Switzerland helicopter rescue (mostly mountains and helicopters are used most frequently) is a payed service. Get insurance or prepare to wip out the creditcard after landing. People; both locals and toerists know this and are used to this. Once people get used to such a system, nobody really cares. Just buy insurance.



That actually sounds cheap... I think rescue by small helicopter is about €150 per minute in Switzerland. €9000/hour.

The problem is that somebody has to pay for the expenses. And it doesn't seem fair that others have to pay for people who act recklessly.

When people are taking reasonable precautions then it is reasonable that they shouldn't have to pay. But when someone acts with total disregard for the consequences to others, then it seems reasonable that they should have to pay.

Sadly, apparently paying is optional, so we can probably assume that anyone that has already shown total disregard for others, is not going to pay.

Get out your wallets...

Two different systems, both of which seem to work well on their home turf.It can get confusing when users of one system encounter the other. On Denali, some years ago, we had to deal with some continental climbers who had experienced all the fun they could stand and asked for "rescue." We informed them that they weren't eligible and that they could just ski back down the hill. They seemed surprised that they couldn't just call for rescue when things got a little tough.

The North American system is based on volunteers, augmented by various agencies providing useful assets (helicopters). Capabilities evolve in response to different environments. (You would be surprised at the number of swift water rescues performed in the desert.)

That sort of system works in the Alps, but I don't think it translates so well to much of the U.S. or Canada. Note that Switzerland is a very tiny country (compared to the US). Rescue services (and billing, and insurance) can be readily centralized. Most SAR activity is for climbers, hikers, and skiers. Rescues are frequent enough to justify a full time dedicated service.

In contrast, the U.S. and Canada are vast countries with a huge variety of SAR problems. Depending on where you get into trouble (and what sort of trouble you are in) responsibility for rescue may fall upon local police or fire departments, county sheriffs, state police, the Coast Guard, National Park Service, the military, volunteer SAR teams, or other agencies. Missions can involve everything from climbers dangling on cliffs to demetia patients who wander into the woods at the edge of town to commercial fishermen in the Beriing Sea. In some areas SAR missions are very frequent, while in other places they are rather uncommon. Trying to put all of this together into a universal pay-for-rescue service such as in Switzerland would be a logistical and administrative nightmare.

Note that we do have something like the European system in a few areas where rescues are frequent and expensive. On Denali for example, the NPS maintains a professional high altitude rescue team and helicopter during the climbing season. All climbers are required to pay a fee before starting their climb. The fee goes into a fund that helps off set the cost of rescues. That works there because it is a local area of frequent and expensive rescues administered by one agency.

According your logic, this recent rescue should be billable? The area here receives a lot of rain which makes for very wet and soggy conditions. So the parents of this now deceased child should not of risked going out on a hike in this very popular but mountainous area?

I could not imagine the public backlash if 3 days before Christmas, the SAR team went to Mom and Dad and said; "Sorry for your daughters loss, but you should of known better to not taken her out on a hike in the rain. Here is a $7000.00 rescue bill for your total disregard for the consequences to others."

Aksar's post jolted me into the realization that things have changed since 1988, when I was on Denali. This prompted me to check the Denali NP website, especially the portion dealing with climbing within the park - http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/upload/English-2-Ready-4.pdf . I found the introduction to this document, while written specifically for Alaska, has relevance to wild places and their users everywhere.

Indeed,things have changed in the last twenty-five years, especially the "special users fee" now collected for climbers of Denali and Foraker. In the NPS literature, this fee is not specifically described as a rescue fee, but does list the performance of many other services required by the volume of climbers.

I think we are arguing over straw men here. Most ops in North America, like most other emergency services, are not billed. If your dwelling catches on fire, or your car is in an accident, do you acquire a charge? Not usually, unless there are exceptional circumstances. It's the same with SAR in North America. That is why the Baxter State Park story is news.

TH has a good point about the use of terms like 'natural selection" and "Darwin" candidates. They contribute almost nothingto understanding the situation at hand. Usually the only information any of us will have is from media outlets, whose information is typically quite superficial, an inherent characteristic of breaking news. When more information is available, conclusions often change.

It would be interesting to figure out the tax burden we bear as a result of SAR operations. I am confident that you will need to be really good with small fractions to achieve this.

I have to agree with TH and H on this point. I believe we should respectfully discuss survival events for what we can learn from them. It serves no good purpose to anonymously humiliate someone who haplessly slips up, makes a bad decision, or does not have the equipment, training, or experience that some of us do.

IMO, it is helpful the take a look at the actions of the folks involved before deciding if they should be “charged.”
For example:
Did they violate any regulations that they knew about or should have known about? And/or
Did they take “unreasonable” risks, or fail to take “reasonable” precautions for the activities they were engaged in? Or,
Did they take “reasonable” precautions and care, but still were the victims of “bad luck.”
Every rescue lies somewhere on this spectrum. At one end, IMO they should be charged; at the other, no. In the middle, it is debatable.

Current user fee for climbers on Denali and Foraker is I believe $365. Part of the reason for the booklet you linked is that many climbers (often but not always foreigners), who may be highly experienced in other regions, arrive somewhat unprepared for conditions on a 20,000 ft peak located in subarctic latitudes. I believe the NPS relaxes some requirements slightly for climbers who have been on the mountain previously, on the assumption they have a better idea what they are getting into.

The problem is that these things are always a judgement call. Who gets to decide what is a reasonable risk? Who decides what are reasonable precautions? For example some people think virtually ANY mountaineering is crazy dangerous. Often the officials who would have to make these judgements are totally ignorant about these activities.

Personally I don't think people should be charged for rescue except perhaps in the most outstandingly egregious cases.

Not directly tied to this incident, but interesting related reading about how the rules in Baxter State Park were relaxed for winter hiking in December 2009.

http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web09f/newswire-baxter-winter-regulations-relaxed

Apparently the park does now allow solo hikers in winter, but in the recent case, the person involved didn't even follow the more relaxed, basic rules, since they didn't obtain a permit, or even sign in at a trailhead.

Prior to 2009, the park had required a minimum group size of 4 in winter, with equipment, food, and overnight stay requirements. With the new rules, the required equipment is now "recommended", and there is no minimum group size. You do still need to secure a permit, but those are easier and quicker to obtain than before. It's an interesting article because it talks about why they changed the rules, and what they hoped to accomplish.

Good points.

Another thing to consider before throwing around derogatory comments is that there can easily be important, opinion-shifting factors about the incident that don't get reported. An example is this very high profile piece that makes the 'good Samaritan' rescuer out as a buffoon. Turns out that the rest of the story shows such a judgment to be much less clear cut.

Well if everybody is charged for rescue, you won't have a debate about to charge or not to charge. It can be a up front system like Denali or afterwards by the user or his insurance like in Switzerland. You can determine the fee by the local park, why bother with standardising? The cost certainly aren’t ‘t.

Rescue has to be paid one or the other way. I’m currently seeing the effect of government paid services and the budgets cuts; SAR helicopter being removed from service, training cycles slowed by 1/3, medical units completely removed, fire engines being replaced by ‘rapid intervention vehicles’ (1/3 of the crew and far less capability), extending write off periods of equipment, etc. I would rather have a paid rescue service than no service.

My regrets for your situation; it is indeed grim. Fortunately things are not bad in SoCal at the moment. I think this shows one of the advantages of a volunteer involved system - relative freedom from budget cycles. The typical operation is not that complex or expensive. You need ten or twenty bucko lads and lassies to go out and find little Johnnie and bring him back. You need experienced people more than elaborate equipment and if they are volunteers,that neatly manages the budget.

Then, of course, there is the non-typical operation, but that's another story

Colorado got it right with their CORSAR card.

Included with hunting and fishing licenses.

You got that right! I buy a fishing license every year, even though some years I never make it fishing. One, it supports outdoor activities, and two, it covers me if I ever need rescue. It costs next to nothing.

My take is that if a SAR organization gets taxpayer dollars, then that's what they get. You don't get to bill in addition to that. If the tax money you get is not enough, ask for more tax money, or go private, bill for everything, and realize you will not get tax subsidies. You shouldn't be able to bill people that don't use your services (the vast majority of taxpayers) and also get to double-dip bill those who do. Pick the one you want to bill, and that's it. And you also have to realize that in the private world, you only get to bill those who want and ask for your services. If you go out looking for a lost hiker because you found their car in a parking lot, and they really weren't lost or in need of your help in the first place, then you don't get to bill them. It would be different if a relative/friend engaged your services to find the lost person. Then bill the person who retained you. But not if you are getting tax money for your response. You can't have it both ways.

There is a town here in Colorado that is now trying to bill out-of-towners for any fire department response if they are in a car accident. What they are finding, is that people are just avoiding their town (which happens to be a mountain touristy town, which nobody HAS to go through, but people can choose to). Soon enough, I think the town will decide that the head of the fire department that come up with this plan is a bonehead, and will get rid of them. That's my prediction.

I'm not in the US, but my in experience, asking for money as a government organisation never really result in more money.

Having a mayor incident and not adequate responce does seem to boost the budget for a short periode...

What I see is organisations just get told they get X percentage less budget next year and they have to make do. Ofcorse somehow still need to comply with rules and regulation.

And just go private is not really easy. Well actually it is in some cases, when the govenment start to use contracters and allow them to bid for the lowest prices. Still payed with tax money. Results varey widely.

For example; The US contractor airtanker fleet is a bit outdated to say the least...



The fireservice cost money. If they don't get enough, they can't provide a (proper) service. Periode. You can 'get rid' of people, but that does not solve the underlying problem.

I heard of eastern european volenteer fire services who show up in the west to pick up a donated 20 year old fire engine and other old equipment and not having money to pay for the diesel to drive it back. Basically planning to beg for fuel on there way back, just like they do when they are back home...

Billing out-of-towners exclusively and in an isolated position is not a smart way to collect that money. Doubly so if the town lives from the tourists. The message is fairly clear.
It is predictable that the plan is going to make the problem worse by lowering the income of the towns people. If accidents with visitors are so frequent that they really matter, the police should put in a little more effort to encourage people to comply with traffic rules.

Sadly, people will continue to do as they like, and continue to rely on the good will of the general public to get them out of the trouble they get themselves into. Some day soon, I expect we will run out of the ability to pay for these benevolences, and reckless fools will revolt that they can no longer depend on other people to save them in their folly.

Until then, I don't expect the situation in this country to change much. We've built a multi-generational culture on reckless adventure and entitlement expectations. When the funding finally does run out, and SAR volunteers are too busy trying to keep themselves alive to be of much help to someone stuck on a wet hilltop in a t-shirt, hearts will break, and balance will be restored.

But hey, let's go ahead and use it up now, while still have enough to go around. After all, if we don't, someone else will.

More widespread, is that some fire departments that provide EMS services will actually bill insurance companies, hoping to get some sort of reimbursement. The problem is that medical care, training, supplies, equipment, drugs, etc. are expensive. It's an outside-the-box approach, but not one that I agree with. You're right -- I think if the majority of the public knew about it, there would be changes made *very* quickly!