Rescue Me, Please!!!

[Gary_C]

Just recently there were two young ladies, one from Minnesota that went on a hike in Denali National Park and got lost and ended up wandering for days till they finally could get a cell phone signal and call out to a relative. They were rescued  and it was a heart warming story with a good ending. But earlier, when they turned up missing, there was a large search effort to find them that involved many people and aircraft and I am sure at great expense to the public and the many volunteers that conducted the search.

Now I do not mean to pick on these two ladies, but it brings up a question about who should pay for these search and rescue missions. Certainly it is a comfort to know when you are traveling or whatever, especially in bad weather that the emergency response teams are going to be out there looking for you when there is trouble. But what about the people that set out on these daring adventures in wilderness areas, many times totally unprepared for what they will encounter that get into trouble?

I do not know how these searches and rescues are funded, but should the public be responsible for the costs?

[Tom]

I'm old school and believe that rescue is provided by Government organizations that are funded by tax revenue or volunteers provided by folks who care.  As a young fellow, I was quite a swimmer.  I was payed to be a lifesaver, having Red Cross lifesaving and instructor  certificates.   I wouldn't charge someone  for dragging them out of the water, even though it might be endangering my life.   It was my job whether in a paid situation or not.

I was raised in an era when the U.S. Coast Guard performed rescues and didn't ask for reimbursement.  It was their job, regardless of how stupid the boat owners were.

I see the same requirements of the Sheriff's office, mountaineering groups etc, the U.S. Army, Marines, Air-force and even the Peace corps.

Government based, tax supported organizations that charge (double indemnity) for caring for campgrounds or trails in National or State forests go against my grain.  So does the threat of the charging a hiker for the volunteers or Gov. organizations who show up to help in an emergency.

Now if the "out-of-gas" boater calls Tow Bridge to come get them, he's calling a commercial tow truck and should be expected to pay.  For the U.S. Coast Guard to turn down a plea for aid because there is a commercial company called Tow Bridge, is not right.

I also don't think that you should get a bill for 911 calls for help, or for having your burning house put out by the community fire department.   If a policeman saves you from a wildman waving a pistol, I wouldn't expect you to receive a bill from the City either.

Many of our Government  "fathers" have decided that taxes aren't to be used on citizens and the Government funded organizations should "earn" their own way.    These folks need to be run out of office, out of town and tar and feathered if caught. 

[Warbird]

Tom pretty much sums up my own opinion on this.  While I am often disgusted at people who come up here completely unprepared for whatever situation they are putting themselves into, I feel that search and rescue is one of the few good services gov't still provides today.

Besides, who are we to judge some tourist's stupidity.  Or anyone else's stupidity, for that matter.  We all have our moments and I am happy to see tax dollars spent on rescuing us from our own stupidity.

That being said, it should not be counted upon (e.g. post-Katrina).  One should not expect the gov't to come riding in on a white horse and save the day when everything goes wrong.  If you count on it as your sole source of survival, you might be unpleasantly surprised.  Or dead.  :-\

[isawlogs]

   I am of the same thought , that is , that the search and rescue should not have a fee attached to it even though at times you really needs to scratch your head as to why and how some got lost or needed the rescuing  :
I am thinking of the old man that drove through my electric fence continued on to stop on a pile of rocks .......... looking for the border  :  He would of been a good cadidate for the rescue team .... 

[jeffreythree]

I think there should be a "stupidity tax", but I have no clue how you would judge that.  Perhaps on a daytime television show?  I go hiking all over the southwest, many times on unmarked BLM and national forest land.  I always go prepared for the inexplicable, a USGS quad and a compass are cheap backups to a GPS(if you know how to use them).  This past weekend I was near Durango, CO on a short hike and the snow was still 8' deep in places.  The trail was almost completely invisible from the snow, and on the way down I came across a family with 3 kids on their way up.  No packs, maps, food, or jackets, just a couple of water bottles in hand.  The oldest daughter(10yo?) hit a melted spot next to a buried log and sank to her shoulders.  Luckily she missed the log and it was not a spikey old stump or snag that could have torn her up.  They were about halfway into a 5 mile hike.  The mother even asked which way to go, I shook me head, gave them my quad that I had marked with the trail the night before,  and showed them the 3 peaks they could use for landmarks.

[beenthere]

I'm having the same question as Gary C.  No answers, just the same question. 
These two, when interviewed, appeared clueless about what they were doing...and in my opinion, had no business going into the wilderness area without a guide.
But I suspect I do know who paid for all the rescue expenses. Then again, they responded pretty quickly, and maybe should have cooled their heals a bit (hindsight is 20-20  ), but glad I didn't have to make the decision.

They can now become more famous for the 'daring adventure' and will be one of the media stars for a short while.

[Sprucegum]

We have lots of ski resorts in the Rockies with ski trails clearly easy, medium, hard or---DANGER DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE

The idiots who cross the line and consequently need rescue are now getting billed. The powers that be hope it will act as a deterent  :-\

[SwampDonkey]

Usually it doesn't deter. Since those that  go boldly sometimes have no idea of the regulations. They just want to do what, when, where, how they wish.

I don't agree with a rescue fee however. If there is a judgment call behind a fee, who is the judge and how do you rank stupidity vs preparedness, maybe they are one in the same. How do you judge the homeowner that won't leave home before the flood, even after the warning of the coming danger? What about the officials that approve the home site in a flood prone zone?

[Ianab]

Same question comes up here each time there is a big search and rescue operation. Especially a wide area marine search with aircraft @ $10k per hour.

General consensus is that if you start charging for rescues then people are going to be less willing to actually call for help, or report friends/family overdue. Then the weather has closed in making the search more difficult, or it becomes a body recovery.

While it gets frustrating rescuing idiots , where do you draw the line? Do you leave people behind because they dont agree to pay?

Bottom line is we all pay indirectly for the rescuses, it comes from the police, airforce, coast gaurd or navy budget. But I'm happy to pay for that as long as if I go walking, trip over and bust my leg, someone will come and drag me out of the bush.. and NOT send me a big bill.

I reserve the right to get annoyed at the idiots still.

Ian

[Gary_C]

Bottom line is we all pay indirectly for the rescuses, it comes from the police, airforce, coast gaurd or navy budget. But I'm happy to pay for that as long as if I go walking, trip over and bust my leg, someone will come and drag me out of the bush.. and NOT send me a big bill.

I reserve the right to get annoyed at the idiots still.

Ian, that's a great answer!  I would only add that any money received for telling their story about their stupidity must be shared equally with the rescuers including travel expenses.  8)

[Ironwood]

This has been a topic in outdoor circles for years. Climbers especially but also general users of the outdoors need to be trained, organizations like the Seattle Mountaineers (they have other branches ,such as in Spokane), The Explorers Club of Pittsburgh, AMC Appilachian Mountain Club, The Adirondack Mountain Clubs,   have all types of training for those interested in serious outdoor pursuits there is and Has been a long held belief that people need to take personal responsibility for their actions, this would include financial responsibility as well. In a world of increasing accessability to outdoor pursuits the rescue issue has become a major issue. Some even believe those "lost" should be left for dead, not risking others lives to save theirs. I hear what you are saying Tom, but it has gotten out of hand.

       Ironwood


           

[Handy Andy]

  A couple of months ago I had some cow pasture burned off.  When I got up there, about 6 big heavy fire trucks were putting out the fire.  I asked if I was going to get a bill for this, and the fire chief said no.  Come to find out, a young volunteer thought fires were so much fun, he was going around a lighting a few.  That's how mine started.  Haven't heard how his case is coming yet.

[Cedarman]

I am one of the few that like to crawl around in caves.  Have done so for over 40 years.  It is a whole different world underground.  Anyone that is a miner knows this too.  We know that if an accident happens we will either self rescue or call upon fellow cavers to help.  We have a call out list and people from all parts of the state or country for that matter will immediately be prepared to assist in a rescue.  The media and local officials are not notified. Efforts are made to keep it quiet unless it is obvious surface support will be needed.  Cave rescue people are well trained and practice rescues several times a year.  No fees would ever be charged, even for the non caver who gets lost or hurts themselves in a cave.

I think that it is one of the nice things about being human that others who do not even know us will come to our aid when needed.

How many of us have been rescued by advice right here on the forum?

[semologger]

The only thing i can say to outdoor people that don't have much business being out there is GPS. I can put a can on a stump and mark it on my GPS. Give it to another person and they could find it. Now these people go out and spend all this money to go out in the wilderness now why don't they buy one. They would save everyone else alot of time looking for them. I always have mine on my 4 wheeler anytime i am out riding. I always know were i am at.

[DanG]

This is a great topic, with some good comments so far, and one that I have thought about for a number of years.  Thanks for bringing it up, Gary. 8)

What conclusion has ol' DanG come up with, you might ask?  Well, I'm still a bit torn about it.  On the one hand, I really despise the fact that almost everything we do is regulated in some way.  I'm old enough to remember the day when it wasn't that way, and I long for the freedoms we used to have. :'(  On the other hand, I have little tolerance for other people's stupidity, and I don't like paying for it. >:(

My conclusion lean's toward the compassionate side, and I think the public should foot the bill.  Protection of our citizens and guests is one of the highest callings of Government, IMHO, even if we're protecting them from themselves.  Now, just how we go about doing that without breaking the bank, is another question I've pondered about.  On that count, I think we should employ the Military as much as possible.  Having spent some time there, I know just how boring and ineffective training exercises can be when compared to live situations.  Our Military burns up millions of gallons of precious fuel every day, just boring holes in the sky to get their hours in so they can get flight pay.  Why not use some of that money that has already been spent?  Pilots and ground troops alike would benefit tremendously from having an actual mission to perform, and we're already paying them to do the same cottonpickin' thing with less training benefit.  The ground troops and their support groups spend much of their time in the field, just camping out(they call it "bivouac") and hiking for the experience of being out there in tough conditions.  There is a steady stream of Army, Air Force and Navy planes in and out of Tallahassee's airport all the time, flying just to be flying.  These people would be learning a lot more about teamwork and achievment by actually providing a service to the public, than they do with the mindless busywork they currently perform.  We could take it several steps beyond the occasional search and rescue mission, too.  Many military aircraft carry large water tanks just so they will be operating with a load, for training purposes.  Why don't we use them to fight forest fires?  Our waterfront is lined with military airfields.  Why don't they keep a wad of those floating oil barriers on each one, so they can scramble some help whenever there is an oil spill?  I ain't got the $15,000 it takes to get the hospital's chopper out here if I have a heart attack, so why can't the Army use one of their's?  ad infinitim

Yeah, the Gov't should be watching out for fools, but they should be a lot wiser about it. ;)

[Left Coast Chris]

Alot of good thoughts in this thread and interesting subject.  I can go along with the govornment footing the bill for resuces to save peoples lives.  That is one of their key functions.  A couple of exceptions I can think of though:

1)  If someone is in the act of commiting a crime or breaking a law when an incident occurs the they should foot the bill.   If a drunk driver drives into a river and risks others lives to get him out for example ....... he should pay.

2)  If someone starts a fire that is preventable and more fire fighters have to be called out than are on staff then they should pay.  Here in Northern California, if someone mowes his lawn after 12:00 noon when the humidity is down and the wind is up and hits a rock and starts a fire he has to pay.  The reason is that mowing cautions are well publicized and everyone knows about it.  It is considered preventable.  If a large land owner has a permit for a controlled burn but does not follow the rules on the permit and burns when the wind is too high and it gets away from them they pay.  The cost can be $100k or more on a moderate sized fire needing heavy equipment to stop.

[logwalker]

Tom, I understand your point, but...

For those that don't know the history of the Pacific NW mountaineering it can be pretty much summed up in stories about Mt. Ranier in Washington and Mt. Hood in Oregon. Some of the stories have happy endings and some are so sad they make you want to cry. This one happened in 1986 and brought forth all the same questions.

http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/modules/nw_wx_watch/mt_hood_disast.html

Before I tell you my feelings on this latest episode I will give you a little background on myself.

I lived and worked for years in the shadow of Mt. Hood. My wife and I opened a Ski shop at the base of the Mountain in 1984. We were intimately involved with the mountain for many years before that. In 1974 I got a job with Mt. Hood Meadows ski resort and worked in some capacity there until I opened our ski shop. In winter I was in the back-country with friends almost every week and  sometimes every day. We orienteered on cross-country and downhill skis into remote areas in some very challenging weather conditions. In all those years we never required any outside assistance to get back home. There were times when we were close to that point but we never went over our limits. Did we know our limits? Probably not but we just knew we couldn't cross them.

Winters would bring thousands of people to the mountain. Most of the ones that went into the back-country had some practical experience with the outdoors. You have heard the old saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is certainly true in these circumstances.

Several times every winter small groups of people with varying levels of experience would head out to test themselves against the Mountain only to find that the Mountain was a very perilous adversary. What was painfully clear to someone that understood the perils was the carelessness that the "victims" demonstrated time after time. No matter how well the story was covered in the media it would happen over and over again. And each and every time the brave and dedicated men and women whose responsibility it was, would suit up, grab their survival gear, buckle into their skis, crampons or snowshoes and head into the storm.

How many times did some in the rescue group perish attempting to find the foolish ones who chose to place themselves in harms way? What kind of logic did these people use to justify their self-gratifying quest for excitement.

In nearly every case requiring search and rescue there was a near total  disregard for the dangers to themselves and the rescuers who stopped what they were doing and came after them. Their poor preparation and lack of lack of good judgment caused the predictable outcome every time. Even when technology provided a safer alternative in the form of locators that could be rented at any mountain shop or at the main lodge on the mountain they chose not to use them.

Remember this terrible crash in 2002?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhfJDq_I1HA

The last couple of rolls of the copter you can see three crewman being ejected from the fuselage.

The list goes on and on. At what point do these people take responsibility for their actions?

I have lost all patience with these people. I say send them a bill for the whole rescue unless it was something outside of their control. That does happen too and when it does a board or committee of some sort could look at the circumstances and decide who should pay.

In Europe they sell insurance to people that covers them while recreating. We should not be asked to babysit these folks as they throw caution to the wind and enter the back-country when it is ill-advised to do so.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent my feelings on this issue. Joe

[Warbird]

Interesting thoughts, Joe.  Very interesting.  I'm going to have to cogitate on that.

[WildDog]

I have had 2 goes at posting on this thread not sure where they went, hopefully 3rd time lucky.

I agree with most what Tom said however there are some idiots about that have no idea, why go rock fishing when you can't even swim or read a treacherous surf. Maybe a data base that records adults rescued and 3 strikes you pay.

I am all for adventurous activities where would we be without our early explorers, it wouldn't be adventurous if there wasn't an element of danger or failure.

We are a society wrapped in cotton wool, there is an Act or Policy that won't allow us to climb more than 6ft without a harness, lift more than 20 pounds, work more than 100yards from a 1st aid kit, don't work in the rain, can't work more than 10hrs straight, must have a meal break between the 3rd and 5th hr etc etc. How are we going to react when it hits the fan if society hasn't had to opperate outside a controlled environment, these days working outside your comfort zone probably means public speaking etc its a challenge but at the end of the day your still going to go home to your family or whatever.

Lets start our adventurers younger and prepare them, "Action is better than reaction" take a proactive approach and get our young folk away from the game boys and outside fishing hunting, canoeing, let them experience the challenges that come with these pursuits in a more controlled environment, my mates and I still reminisce over close calls and outcomes from our juvenile adventures, some of these we pass onto our own kids others we keep to ourselves ;)they were good bonding times, can't say challenging my mate 25 years ago on a gameboy would rouse the same memories over a beer. Don't expect perfect predictable outcome every outing, My 16yr old gets a kick out of saying "this is another fine mess you got us in dad."

IMO another problem is that more boys are being raised by single moms who are usually more protective and some hav'nt experienced these activities, I can speak from experience as a sole male parent involved with a group of sole parents, mainly mothers, when we organised outdoor activties canoing, fishing etc the few of us fathers were swamped with kids busting to have ago, these activities were instigated by the moms who wanted their kids to experience the outdoors, it cut both ways too, my son seeked the comfort from the mothers. There is also an increasing numbers of families without the time to give our younguns the chance to get outdoors. This isn't much of an excuse whilever there is Scouts and other similar groups about.

We will always need rescue teams and the chance to respond to a real life emergency allows new members to get a grounding and the whole unit to instigate and evaluate their training, scenario's are well and good but arn't the same and this goes for the team building debriefs that follow a tricky rescue/situation.

Rob 

[TexasTimbers]

Good question Gary, one that has been kicked around for years. I pretty much used up my Opinion Tokens for the month, and then some on ethanol so I'm gonna borrow from July's allotment.  ;D

I don't know much about mountain rescue but I respect those volunteers as much as any other humanitarian endeavor. The paid rescuers deserve no less respect. I believe a state should have the right to provide this service or not for areas within its borders. As a state official I would be one in favor of it for sure. No "stupid tax" and no sending saved victims a bill.

On federal lands within states, I believe the state should also be responsible for SAR there as well. Whether or not the state should be compensated by the federal treasury opens up another can of worms and I think that has been hashed out in court more than once. 

Should the USCG be used for water rescue? As a former coastie I have a biased view probably. It's a gray area of sorts because no doubt the USCG is clearly "constitutional" from several angles any of which are legitimate. Although I served only in peacetime, I have donated to the Coast Guard Combat Veterans Association several times because those guys prior to 911 were never remembered even often times at official government functions!!! The joke "Simply Forgotus" is more than just an inside Coastie joke. It was reality before 911.

Many times in churches over the years when the pastor would ask veterans to stand for recognition of Veterans/Armitstice/Remembrance Day, that would fall nearest  that respective Sunday, he would invariably forget the Coast Guard by saying something like "How about a show of appreciation for our veterans of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines! Oh, and let's not forget those National Guardsmen!" ! ;D I would just sit quietly and clap for my fellow veterans.

So yes, the USCG is certainly authorized by Congress legitametly to help fight wars when called upon, and to protect our national interests which is what it was established to do in 1790 as the Revenue Cutter Service, and collect the tax from  those rum runners.

Should they be saving lives as part of their peacetime mission? All of our armed services are to be constantly drilling, essentially on a war footing for when the time  comes to protect our interests. The CG is no less important during war, and not just because we augment the fighting force. The Airforce and Navy can't always be there to pluck their own pilots out of the drink. And when ships sink the Navy needs to concentrate on killing bad guys. We need a service to pluck those hundreds or thousands from the sea and free up the more capable military assets to wage war.

There's no reason the USCG should not use peacetime SAR as a means to be Semper Paratus for wartime. The USCG is madated by congress as having its primary peacetime mission of martime SAR in both domestic and international waters. During wartime the USCG primary role becomes war, and the domestic SAR mission suffers both on paper and in reality. Might be best not to go sailing as often during wartime. SAR The US Air Force is the official SAR arm of the federal government for inland rescue. Most people don't know that. Of course both services are used in both scenarios.

I think I have shared my very first SAR experience here before. 44 foot catch with 4 POB. This was a fixed wing platform and I was riding as part of my syllabus. We located the fringe of a debris field and zeroed in on the up-turned sailboat quickly. We never found the family and the bodies were never recovered. It was several hundred miles offshore. It was a quiet ride home.

SAR is vital to give a citizenry the freedom to travel and the liberty to explore the natural resources of the nation. I don't think I have to have a double standard to say that the central government should pay for SAR in peacetime for civilians, but if I did, I'm afraid I would just have to have a double standard.