-
Recent Comments
-
About | Advertise | Circulation | Contact | Privacy | Staff | Contributors | Employment | Outdoor Adventure Media
Summit Publishing: Elevation Outdoors | Mountain Gazette | Breathe
by BRO Admin on March 16, 2010
About | Advertise | Circulation | Contact | Privacy | Staff | Contributors | Employment | Outdoor Adventure Media
Summit Publishing: Elevation Outdoors | Mountain Gazette | Breathe
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Let me clarify. I think it should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If an experienced, well prepared hiker, climber, etc. has something happen to them that is out of their control, something that they couldn’t have prepared for like a rock slide, or other natural event, then no. Now, if some yokel goes galavanting out into the backcountry with no experience, knowledge and completely unprepared then yes.
Everyone, whether experienced or not, should be responsible to help pay or defray the costs of their own rescue. When you go to the “backcountry,” you are going some place that will automatically require greater effort and cost to conduct any sort of help or rescue. Remember, not every jurisdiction has an unlimited budget.
Before going into backcountry, it’s a good idea to check at the ranger office that manages the area on their backcountry rescue policy. A group of us seniors backpacked the Atigun River Gorge on the northern edge of the Brooks Range, ANWR, Alaska, last summer. We were told at the ranger office that we should make our own arrangements in advance for backcountry rescue as they would not come after us as they didn’t have the resources. We were a little taken aback, but on thinking about it, that seemed reasonable. If you go into wilderness, better be prepared.
I agruee with Joe above. If you are experienced and something happens which you have no control over then they should not be charged. I do know first hand the costs of fuel for the equipment used and it is not cheap, plus all the training the rescue people get is not cheap either. I did search and rescue in the military and know how much time and effort it takes to find someone hurt or lost.
Absolutely you should have to pay. You chose the risk.
I voted Yes, but it is conditional. If you are skilled know better, and make a foolhardy decision, then Yes, you should pay for it. (Though in practice it would be difficult to define what a “foolhardy decision” actually is, much less determine who is skilled and who is not.)
On the other hand, if you are an idiot, then No, you should not have to pay for a rescue. In this class, I place 6-year olds who wander away from their parents (for surely they are idiots!) and the genuinely clueless who are essentially like idiots and know not what they are doing.
In our society, up until modern times, we have generally had a presumed duty to protect the idiots, ignorant, naive and clueless. As a cultural background for this we have the Golden Rule of “Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” I realize that this is a values-based first-principle, what some might call morality, and it could be dispensed with in favor of a worldview that is detached, aloof, and fundamentally uncaring for others’ well-being. In that world as a natural extension, there is no charity, no random acts of kindness, and surely no spontaneous joy or beauty. It would be “nature, bare in tooth and fang, rat eat rat, the survival of the fittest.” Not a world I would want to inhabit.
That said, I also think that Search and Rescue (SAR) operations should also be conducted at minimal operational cost. The “heroic” efforts that are often undertaken in order to save the foolhardy (such as winter climbers on Mt. Hood) are an object lesson in our Good Samaritan values having jumped the shark: not only are these incredibly costly, but they risk the rescuers themselves. I realize that SAR and EMS folks are often volunteers who put themselves on the line, but tell that to a surviving 4-year old daughter that her “Mother died trying to save a hiker that was climbing Mt. Hood for personal ego, but didn’t have the sense to carry a compass.”
It’s an interesting thought. Here in the UK, most search and rescue operations are carried out by volunteers, often relying on charitable donations.
I’d certainly like to think that anyone rescued in this way would at least consider donating.
I think to reasonably say that a lost or injured hiker should be charged for backcountry rescue, it would have to be considered whether or not the same should be applied to a hiker who is searched for but is found dead, which unfortunately sometimes happens. What about a teenager out hiking who gets lost or injured? Should parents be forced to foot the bill of rescuing their child? Hikers should seriously consider donating to those who make search and rescues possible where they frequently hike, and without a doubt, generously donate if they ever need to be rescued. I do not agree with requiring payment for a search and rescue team. With that said, I think more hikers should be educated on how costly rescues in the backcountry can be.
No. We shouldn’t turn Rangers and Rescue workers into Tow Truck drivers. Every case of “Help” in this country shouldn’t be turned into profit centers. Sometimes people should be helped because they need help. It’s that simple. It’s a moral issue that needn’t be transformed into just another cash register for opportunists.
A helping hand shouldn’t be stretched unless it’s open..
Some sort of fee should be charged. If only to deter people from taking foolhardy risks relying on other people to come to the rescue when the inevitable happens. That being said, I don’t think it should bankrupt people who need help.
I think that paying for rescues would help deter people from calling in the choppers when it is possible to hike out, or be carried out on a stretcher. However, I realize it must be incredibly difficult to carry someone out of a wilderness area on a stretcher, but is the helicopter always a necessity? It seems that the Search and Rescue teams are more likely to just call in a chopper these days than use the traditional means of rescue when faced with challenging terrain such as the Linville Gorge.In Jakub Holy’s story about his epic injury in the Linville Gorge, he discusses what is is like to be in incredible pain and unable to get one’s self out of the situation and it provides a good reference point for this discussion. http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/current-issue/features/broken-down/
Yes, it is a service, an expensive service that requires hours of preparation and training, costly equipment, and lots of man power. All of that leads to a rescue of an otherwise lost human being. Why shouldn’t there be a price on saving a life? Whatever the cost, it will never be enough for the time added on to what could’ve been a life cut too short. I know that I wouldn’t begrudge a single cent paid for the rescue of a loved one, or even myself.
Should police charge you for rescuing you from a home invasion? Should the fire department charge you for rescuing you from a burning building? These are services that require equipment and training, and yet, we take them for granted. The difference is that most search and rescue groups are VOLUNTEER organizations, and that many helicopter rescues are written off as “training” because the birds have to be in the air anyway. It drives me crazy that the media seems to focus on the few and far between crazy risk takers instead of the majority of rescues, which are normal people who have an accident.
Charging for rescue causes delays in reporting an incident. Delays cause increased risk to the person in trouble AND the people trying to rescue them.
Tough questions, but…..Most first responders in our Rocky MOuntain area agree that they shouldn’t charge. So I’ll go with the experts on this one, though the ones who call on the cell phone for water should be penalized.
As an avid outdoorsman, if I knew that every rescue was going to result in a massive financial burden on my family, I would be more inclined to try and make it back, no matter how badly injured. Given that my choice would be between a huge debt for my family, or some financial security through a life insurance payoff, I would choose the latter.
That’s why I don’t support charging for rescues, because faced with a huge possibility of cost, most reasonable people would not subject their families to this, and would simply end up dead. Finding a dead person in the woods is harder than finding a live one.
As a volunteer SAR member I say NO. The fear of being charged would not make our job better, no satisfaction in being a mercenary.
What people are overlooking here is the rescuers themselves. There will ALWAYS be inexperienced, “foolhardy” people going into the backcountry. Charging for rescue will never deter them all. When people believe there is a charge involved, they will delay calling for help when they get into trouble. They only call when the situation finally becomes so dire that they don’t feel they have a choice. This in turn also make the situation more dire and dangerous for the rescuers.
I have been a member of a volunteer search and rescue team in Colorado for over 10 years. I choose to give my time to whomever needs it whether it be a “foolhardy” person or someone with experience, training and knowledge who simply had an accident (the majority, by the way). A life is a life. You don’t have to agree with me and you don’t have to go rescue the occasional idiot, but don’t put my life or the lives of my teammates in danger because you think someone made a poor decision and should pay for it. We want to help and so far haven’t lost a team member or had a serious injury to one of our own because we don’t charge. We constantly drill that message home to the public which means we get the calls at the first sign of trouble and can often dispatch our teams before the situation becomes life-threatening.
With regards to cost, our services our free. We are all volunteers and fund gear and training with donations from folks who support what we do and very often from the individuals and families of those whom we have rescued. We only call for helicopters when an injury is life threatening or if it would greatly increase the safety of an evacuation for both the patient and our rescuers. A medivac helicopter is paid for by the patient or patient’s insurance company (no charge to the tax payers). We are also fortunate to have access to National Guard helicopters if they are available. The National Guard pilots are required to fly a set number of training hours each month, so they will be flying whether we have a mission or not. Frankly, real-life incidents often provide invaluable training opportunities that regular exercises would not.
The majority of search and rescue efforts are for unforeseen accidents that happen to perfectly capable and prepared individuals. Let’s not create more dangerous situations because of the handful of “foolhardy” people who get most of the press.
I believe that they should not have to pay, i do firmly believe that our volunteer SAR organizations(like mine in Lake Co CO) should receive some type of re-imbursemnet for our time and commitment, but on the original question, no, maybe force them to take a NOLS course though
I believe that they should not have to pay, i do firmly believe that our volunteer SAR organizations(like mine in Lake Co CO) should receive some type of re-imbursemnet for our time and commitment, but on the original question, no, maybe force them to take a NOLS course though
You should have given us a third choice, like “depends”! Its not as simple as yes or no but given only two choices, I pick “no”. In some cases of sheer stupidity, the answer would be yes. No one goes out “adventuring with the intention (we hope) of getting lost or worse (injured or killed). Even seasoned outdoor enthusiasts(sp?) make mistakes and wind up in trouble. That’s why I am in favor of some kind of “outdoor adventure insurance”. I still think its safer to challenge the outdoors than drive a vehicle , which by the way requires insurance! I for one try to be prepared when I challenge the outdoors but as they say “sh*t happens”. I happen to belong to an SAR team and don’t mind at all giving my time and resources to helping others. I would like to see more opportunities for people to attend outdoor survival training sessions, free of charge.
Adventurers do not go out with the intent of getting into a bad situation. It’s good to know that if the need arises, there are people you can count on to help. People who sacrifice everything to help those that need it. I spent 10 years on the fire department in Damascus, VA. I can’t count the number of times we were called to walk the Appalachian Trail looking for someone that was lost or evacuate an injured biker on the Creeper Trail. Many times I rode the Creeper Trail to find a toddler that got separated from his parents. Not once did we think about charging.
We get tens of thousands of people going into the woods every year. Granted some don’t know the stinky end of a skunk and that you can walk in the forest for 10 minutes and be lost for 10 hours, but nature is there for all to enjoy.
While we do in fact already pay for backcountry rescues through our taxes, I feel we should be charged. I personally have done some pretty stupid and risky adventures in the backcountry. I don’t expect others to pay for my thrill seeking even if it goes completely wrong.
I was an avid diver for years and paid for DAN insurance which covers a decompression chamber session (which costs $10K a pop) and other necessary services in case of an accident at sea. When you dive, you take the risk. You will get billed for everything. I don’t see the backcountry as any different.
If you have to be “rescued” from the wilderness, then there should be a charge. Ask yourself this, “how often have I been rescued from the wilderness?” My guess is the majority of you reading this will respond with, “never” or “once.” Regardless, if someone has to seek you out in the wilderness you need to thank them graciously with a payment. If I had to be rescued from the wilderness of course I would pay, but handing over the money would honestly be painful. In that situation I’m also going to re-think my adventures if I’m having to pay someone to bring me out of the woods.
Yes. I am a safety professional and a huge fan of outdoor adventure. We should all get out and enjoy what nature has to offer but many adventurers lack even the most basic knowledge and skills required to avoid natural hazards. I do not think it is a matter of skill level because, in my experience, experienced adventurers often make the most foolish mistakes. This occurs because they believe their experience and skills give them the right to skip the most basic rules – rules that only novices must adhere to in the wilderness. The laws of nature act differently though. Sure, things can simply just go wrong but my experience has shown me that the trigger is most often a foolish error that could have been avoided and, therefore, the incident could have been prevented.
It all boils down to the fact that someone has to pay for the rescue. We will all have to pay for it somehow. Either it comes directly out of the injured person’s pocket or we all have to agree to increased fees. Rescue services are very expensive to operate and maintain. I don’t think the family that just comes into the park for a leisurely hike should have to pay for my lifeflight rescue out of the park because I didn’t scout a new mtb trail and took a header off a steep hill. That’s clearly my fault. My ego got the best of me.
With a little more preparation we could all avoid a lot of preventable incidents.
Unfortunately, I do feel they should have to pay. Whether a volunteer or a paid organization is doing the search and rescue, funds are needed to insure the group is able to exist and be available for searches and rescues. When ambulances are needed and a lot of rescue squads are ran by volunteers, there is a charge for their services. The wilderness resuce is by far no less valuable to a lost or injured person than someone a rescue squad assists in Downtown, America.
Yes, there should be payment for one’s own rescue. I don’t think it should be dependent on some of the points made above…if a person is prepared or not – or is an ‘idiot’ or not. Those are all subjective cases and would not be fair from one rescue to the next. There should be a fee for rescue which is as close to a ‘flat rate’ as possible. If you’re unprepared or an idiot, then you have a higher chance of requiring assistance and therefore that is the unprepared idiots’ cost – increased probability.
HOWEVER, The cost of rescue should not be for the entire cost since most agencies which support these types of rescues are subsidized by tax dollars. The rescue fee should also be subject to insurance coverage, just as an ambulance ride is currently. What if you don’t have insurance? Well, see above…maybe you should avoid any situations of undue risk. All fees should also be subject to appeal – just like a citation – this compensates for unfair scenarios to be heard in front of a judge.
I think that a fixed amount should be set which reduces the chance of ‘chicken little’ ankle twist calls vs a serious or life-threatening injury. I do not agree with an amount equivilent to extortion – what is this amount? I’m not sure, I would be OK with a few hundred dollars to cover first aid materiel, fuel, etc. – things that would cost money to be replaced.
But…authorities must also consider when setting a fee that if they set it so high, they might NOT get that call…and they will have to work and pay to possibly extract a body from the wilderness instead of rescue a thankful victim.
I’m coming into this late, but I figured that since I have been one of the lucky rescued ones that I would give my perspective. My cousin and I were backpacking in January 2010 when we were stranded by a flash flood (flash flood in JANUARY???) when several up-river ice dams broke following some light rain and the bridge we crossed was washed away. We were able to signal another set of hikers and they hiked out and called for help. We were stranded for about 30 hours before being found by the SAR squad (for which we are both incredibly grateful). The 2 SAR members were able to bring us back to safety relatively quickly and with little difficulty. However, as we were preparing to hike out my cousin slipped and fractured his leg in 3 locations, just above the ankle (in the process of retrieving some litter left behind). This changed our situation from a simple rescue to one requiring an immediate airlift to a hospital, as blood flow was being impeded to his foot and could have resulted in substantial tissue injury.
What’s the point of all this? Well I believe this illustrates several things. First, had we not alerted the other hikers to go for help and attempted to cross a swollen river ourselves, it would have likely ended up a SAR attempt for two bodies. Though it was within our means to pay for such a rescue attempt, imagine if it were younger, college-aged hikers (Experienced hikers no less, we are both Eagle scouts with many many miles in our boots) it is very possible that they would attempt such an escape due to the overwhelming potential to send them into financial ruin. People have done stupider things for far less.
The second phase of our rescue was far more expensive, considering a medivac helicopter was required to airlift my cousin out. And to answer any questions of necessity, yes it was absolutely necessary, I’m a doctor myself, I should know. First, given the precarious situation involving impeded blood flow and potential loss of his foot, the fastest route to a hospital gave the best chance for return to normal function (which, luckily, he has). Also, considering the terrain in which we were situated a manual extraction had been estimated to take up to 30 hours, even though we were less than 5 miles in.
The expedient rescue provided by the local services (most of which were volunteer) potentially saved my cousin’s foot and both of our lives. When potential lives are at stake, nobody should be left behind because they don’t have the financial austerity to fund a major rescue. Should that ever be the case perhaps our National Forests should come with a disclaimer, “Those without exorbitant bank accounts need not enter”. Should enjoying what evolution/God created be restricted to the upper class? We are eternally thankful for the amazing services we received last year and I hope that nobody ever has to go through (or pay for) the same.