"And, while we are on the subject, why isn't there the same level of indignation for non-wilderness "negligence" requiring rescue costs, such as people who run space heaters indoors during the winter and set their houses on fire?"

Ah, but there is. It's called homeowners insurance. I paid for mine and got what I paid for when my house burned down. I know some who didn't and were stuck paying on a big loan for a scorched piece of earth, inevitably filing bankruptcy. I know people who have late model autos and fail to pay their insurance premium then end up with a big loan payment on a heap in a junkyard, inevitably filing bankruptcy. I know people who buy term and invest the difference, thinking they'll get better returns on a mutual fund than an annuity, then watch their retirment go up in flames when the market collapses, inevitably going back to work when they could've retired.

"IMHO, if we are going to fine people for requiring rescue services, it seems that the people should have to be guilty of "reckless" behaviour, not merely negligent behavior."

As I said, fining people is not appropriate. The government has a propensity to abuse power and control like that. Requiring people to be financially responsible prior to taking the risk is entirely appropriate. That's the way life is in this day and age. No one gets it both ways, at least not for very long. The crooked and the inconsiderate might for a while, but eventually it will catch up with them too. Then when something extreme like this happens I am not terribly sympathetic, because I pay my own way when I go out to play.