Whilst studying for a PADI Scuba course out in Mexico (the dive centre was just across the road from the notorious Bay Bay Getaway hotel in Cancun next to the big Mexican flag pole), the issue of safety was raised by two young women taking the same PADI course, to which the instructor replied that in the days of Jacque Cousteau, Scuba Diving was a very dangerous sport but today, now with better training and better more reliable gear the safety of the sport has improved radically in the last 30 years, whereas sex had become much more dangerous past time over the same time period. Multiple Underwater Free Form diving is still best left to the experts though.

Of course if you have a more intimate knowledge of the terrain or the challenge that you have set yourself, then less gear is required or perhaps it's just a case of 'the more you know the less you have to carry' or even 'Proper Perperation Prevents P**s Poor Performance'.

There are a lot more dangerous and life threatning activities around in this world than simply going for a stroll into the bear, cougar and wolf infested woods and wilderness. An example would be a Saturday night expedition out to a nightclub in either Glasgow, Manchester or Leeds city centres yet there is no mandatory gear requirement for this activity.

Please note that issuing permits and having rules and regulations are not only for the sake of ensuring safety, but also to limit and control the impact visitors have on popular recreational areas. Some popular trails have been so heavily used, that erosion has become a major issue.

Pete

Maybe those you-are-on-your-own rules might be enforced in the death zone altitudes of the Himalayas, but the herd mentality here would likely crucify any SAR organization that tried it here.

Like the concepts of "free market" and "democracy," the ideas of "freedom" and "personal accountability" remain aspirations at best. Worthy aspirations to fight toward but not accurate descriptions of our daily circumstances in this very interdependent global society.

More on topic, I think preparedness education requirements that would reduce the cost of various licenses and permits to enjoy the outdoors might work.

That might conflict with the “duty to perform” aspect of abandonment. I don’t think any SAR team would want to be the first to test it out in court of law or the court of public opinion.

My feelings on the subject have been posted before. If you participate in SAR/EMS/Fire/Rescue/LE, you do so with the knowledge you may need to come to the aid of the prepared individual who just got into trouble or the unprepared individual who may have or not done something real stupid to be in their current situation. If you do not want to be response neutral you should not be in SAR, EMS, Fire/Rescue or any other emergency service. Yes, you get tired and fed up with people who are unprepared or are frequent fliers (an EMS term) or a whole host of seemly unnecessary emergency reponses, but if you are that bothered by such people/situations, you should look to some other job or interest.

Pete

I'm not sure it would work. Never mind the politics (someone would be screaming about how much a flashlight, mirror, whistle and garbage bag costs, and how it puts the "outdoors" out of reach for the "poor") and the potential litigation issues, but I have to wonder if it would actually do any good.

In some parts of the world, you MUST have a fire extinguisher in the car. OK, that's all well and good. So are they checked during inspection? (I don't know.) But even more importantly, what percentage of motorists know how to use the silly thing? I truely believe that even you did make basic equipment required, you'd still have the same number of SAR callouts because stupid people will do stupid things.

I have no illusions about any equipment requirements actually preventing anyone from attempting to power hike across Glacier National Park with nothing but tennis shoes and a jockstrap with a pack of Tic-Tacs stuffed into the waistband. National parks and forests are not, for the most part, surrounded by unclimbable fences and guard towers. Odds are you will be able to do it and get away with it. If you really want to do something stupid your facing a fine and a stern talking to, not a firing squad.

People likely to demand their right to do something egregiously stupid can still do it. The odd chance of getting caught and paying a fine is just part of the cost of doing business and part of the roguish attraction of being an outlaw, young, and stupid. The fine might be thought of as just removing some of the financial incentive to try to skate by with less equipment and shouldn't give anyone pause if they are dead set on doing it their way.

I definitely don't want to get into a situation where we have to compromise the humanity of the society by withholding help and rescue for people who fail to comply with an equipment list. In the abstract refusing rescue and assistance sounds like rough justice. But long term, when the event inevitably rolls around, it isn't worth it to the society and its view of itself as a just and generous people and withhold help to people in trouble. The standard is, and has to remain, that smart or dumb, well equipped or skating fast over thin ice, if you get into trouble we do everything possible to rescue you. It is who we are. It is how we roll.

There was a situation in Florida a couple of years ago where a nutty lady decided to go on an around-the-world sailing trip. The local Coast Guard commander physically confronted her on the boat and told her he'd arrest her if she tried to leave port. I don't know if he had any law on his side but he sure had common sense...

(this isn't the 13 y/o Dutch girl - that girl apparently has enough solo extended-duration experience to make it if nothing went wrong - the Florida woman had no experience at all)

As for "Duty to Perform" this recently was heard by SCOTUS and police officers can't be sued for not performing (the case was over a protective order that was not enforced). I didn't read the ruling and have no idea if it covers SAR personnel who are not police officers.