Should people who get lost in the wilderness have to reimburse

[cboy4]

local government/state/government for their rescue?

Or should search and rescue service be free of charge, considering most of the "victims" are presumably taxpayers and fund the service they're receiving anyway?

I bring this up in wake of the people missing on Mt. Hood and someone I heard on the radio saying, "those stupid people" should have to write a check for the cost of flying helicopters and the overtime of the personnel looking for them.

I do know in my state (California), it's not completely unheard of to read about people being billed for wildfires they accidentally start.....even if they've not broken a single law.....and even though they pay taxes to fund the fire service.

I wonder where do you draw the line?

I personally feel people should not be charged, unless they're just exceptionally negligent.

[radwriter0555]

1. How about a rescue hazard insurance policy? Perhaps someone can come up

with something like this that could pay for these types of rescues?

[treestar]

3. Good idea, one would think insurance companies would sell

policies and also might have requirements for safety issues that would get the hiker thinking and have them be better prepared.

They are the ones that should bear the responsibility for the risk, IMO.

[uppityperson]

11. Resuce insurance sounds like an idea to think about.

I hate insurance co's already though, legalized gambling, bah, and hate sending them more money, but wonder if this has been talked about much.

[mongo]

24. rescue hazard insurance?

Yeah, you must have money to recreate.

People without resources should just sit at home in their easy chair.

[radwriter0555]

31. It wouldn't have to be expensive at all, that's the point of insurance. If you have money to buy

decent climbing and hiking gear, a policy costing say, $25 a year isn't a huge expense.

[mongo]

36. Assuming we aren't talking about climbing Mt Hood in Decemeber

You really don't need any special gear, just your feet. Hell, I've seen people climbing down into Linville Gorge in shorts and flip-flops -- stupid people.

Back in my day, I went on many day hikes and some backpacking with very mininal gear. Yeah, I took a day pack whereever I went with a towel and washrag, a flashlight, some first aid and a snack, but I didn't need anything I didn't have lying around my house, or to purchase special "gear" to go hiking.

There are wilderness areas all over the country where one misstep can get you in all kinds of trouble.

[SmokingJacket]

2. If they get lost while engaging in high-risk sports, yes.

I think some activities carry a very high inherent risk, and people who participate in them should bear the cost of that risk. There could be a policy that certain sports (and they could be spelled out) would require the participant to reimburse the state any rescue costs.

Any kind of winter wilderness recreational activity should be on the participants' dime, IMHO.

[Sequoia]

7. Why did those men attempt to climb Mount Hood is beyond me.

Didn't they hear about the Kim family and the weather report. It was a foolhardy attempt on their part but now I fear the worst. People need to know you don't go skippig off to the summit with minimal gear and a party dude attitude. I do hope they are holed up safe, but Mt. Hood is huge! There's a 1960s western movie that plays often on AMC with Jimmy Stewart taking some people to Oregon and you can see that majestic mountain in the background and it looks pretty fearsome and awesome at the same time. Any of you from Oregon have experience with that mountian?

[Omphaloskepsis]

46. This happened about four years ago

while rescuing some climbers that had fallen into a crevice.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fhfJDq_I1HA
I remember watching it live on the local news when it happened.. Most people know the risk of climbing hood at this time of year.

[Critters2]

51. That's awful!! Do you know what happened to the pilot or others

in the helicopter?

Why would anyone go climbing there this time of year?!

[no_hypocrisy]

4. I don't believe so.

People put themselves inadvertently in danger due to extraordinary circumstances, not just recklessness or extreme carelessness.

Asking victims to compensate for the search is like asking heart attack victims to pick up the tab for their ambulance.

[kiahzero]

17. You generally do pay for your ambulance ride.

Insurance covers it, but you are billed for the ride, IIRC.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Even for the volunteer EMS? I never knew that. n/t

[Critters2]

42. Yep, ambulance crews send bills. Medicare pays some of 'em.

I've had enough senior parishioners who've fallen to know this.

[mongo]

23. And do you agree that you should be billed for the ambulance ride?

Not for universal health insurance?

[radwriter0555]

32. Yes, when I fell and busted up my knee, I got a bill from LAFD rescue squad.

It was in my kitchen, I didn't have to be rappelled out on a stretcher though.

My insurance paid for it, then sent a request for me to explain the accident in order to try to bill someone else for it.

I had to explain that I tripped over my dog.

[Critters2]

43. Did they go after your dog? nt

[LSK]

5. hell no they shouldnt reimburse the Govt

Thats what the fucking Govt is there for.

This is getting so rediculous!

What happened to "protect and serve"????

How about the Govt not WASTE $1trillion dollars in bogus wars?????

[BeFree]

6. Sure

And while we're at it any pilot that gets lost or crashes should be billed.

How about people lost at sea?

How about everyone who has to stop and ask directions?

If you ever make government do something for you, you should be sent a bill for services?

Is that where all this is heading?

[ashling]

15. When one engages in an extrahazardous

activity, they should bear at least some of the costs that their behavior creates for society. I agree that govt. should provide these types of services, but the money for them comes from libraries, and after school programs, from programs to assist the homebound and other safety net programs.

The elderly didn't ask to get sick, at risk kids didn't ask to grow up with the disadvantages they have. But when someone climbs a notoriously hazardous mountain in winter, where it is known that conditions can become life threatening in an instant, they do bear some of the risk.

Just some thoughts ... its a complicated question.

[ToolTex]

8. I'm glad the comments finally turned around, I thought this was a Rethug

list I was reading. Of course, they shouldn't pay the government for being lost. We need to be getting rid of mandatory insurance coverage, not requiring more.

[SmokingJacket]

10. What's Republican about wanting insane sports nuts to carry their

own risk??

Why are we using up public resources so people can go have fun, when we can't even provide most people with REGULAR health care??

[bowens43]

13. Ok, since we aren't providing health care we shouldn't provide any kind of aid?

That's silly.

[LSK]

16. because the cost of going after insane sports nuts is NOTHING

The cost of finding someone lost in the snow is probably the cost of 0.0001 seconds in Iraq.

And your claim that insane sports nuts getting lost and costing lots of money to find them is one big fat RED HERRING.

People can get lost for a variety of reasons and there should be no distinction on how they are rescued.

[Critters2]

44. Really? All those helicopters are running on something besides gasoline?

Why can't all vehicles be free to operate?

[LSK]

50. way to miss the point

:banghead:

[The Deacon]

9. As One Who Has Rolled Out On A Few Searches

I think I should point out that 80% (or more) of the people who will come looking for you are volunteers - the Government would be broke tomorrow if they actually had to pay the folks who tramp the woods & ford the swamps. Better that they spend those pitiful funds the legislatures permit for Search & Rescue on the helicopters, infrared sensors & other equipment we need to improve our chances of a good outcome. The exceptionally negligent aren't around to charge - just the people they leave behind.
Our motto:
"That Others May Live."

[cboy4]

28. Yes, good point....a sizable number of SAR personnel are

volunteers, which saves a lot of money.

But it's the air support that costs a fortune, right?

I'm still wondering why the Kim family hired, what (4) helicopters for the search in Oregon.

Was it because that small county couldn't afford to put a chopper up for long, if at all?

[The Deacon]

33. See My Post Below

Most counties have to provide SAR resources through "creative" financing - most often the helicopters are from State Patrols (or other police agencies) and are limited as to the hours they can fly (as a safety measure) because of the number of flight hours they've already spent in their regular duties. The planes in a search are usually private planes operated by the Civil Air Patrol or other volunteer organizations & often lack specialized equipment (which is prohibitively expensive.) Hiring helicopters is prohibitively expensive for most SAR operations - the Kim family was able to handle the expense & increased the chances, something beyond the ability of most families.

[bowens43]

12. Of course not.

[AngryOldDem]

14. Aren't people charged for rescues at sea?

If so, then to be consistent, yes. Asking whether or not that is fair is another debate.

[berni_mccoy]

18. Seems to me like we spend a lot of money and technology on catching people

thinking of all the infrared camera scenes from chase helicopters... you'd think we, as a society, could spend a few bucks on finding lost people in the woods.

People need to be responsible, but even seasoned backcountry people can get into trouble sometimes.

The problem comes down to how do you determine if someone was irresponsible or not? I think this is where common sense should trump the law and be determined by local officials.

[The Deacon]

25. We DO Turn A Lot Of The Technology

To Search & Rescue (the same infrared camera you see on "Police Chase Theater" works fine for finding people in the woods) but most people don't realize that SAR operations steal most of our funding from other sources. (Sorry: "borrow.") Our team leader is a fire department EMT & the administrative head is the Assistant Fire Chief. Our training is paid out of a Dept of Homeland Security grant for Community Emergency Response Teams (that's for materials - our instructors are mostly fellow volunteers.) The State Patrol sends ONE of its TWO helicopters equipped with GPS & infrared to help with searches - as long as the pilots aren't already over their allowed flight hours & the helicopters aren't down waiting for parts. The boats we use for water rescue? One is donated, the other was purchased "at cost" from a dealer with Federal money from a fire service grant. The divers are volunteers lead by the same two men mentioned before (who also donate their time to do feeding shows at our local aquarium - as do most of the folks they lead.) We're fortunate - the Assistant Chief is good at writing grants so we were given hard hats, flashlights, t-shirts & vests after we graduated from our basic course. The Chief also managed to come up with some old pagers & radios so we have a communications system that doesn't depend entirely on our personal cell phones. This weekend we'll spend 16 hours in a class on Search Theory.

Does that sound like a group of people who asks whether or not you were thinking when you step off the marked trail?

[jdlh8894]

20. IIRC

They have to sign a release that THEY are RESPONSIBLE!

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. Here in Michigan, at Sleeping Bear Dunes, it is descend at your own

risk. They have signs posted that state this and also warn of fees for Coast Guard rescue. For those who don't know, Sleeping Bear Dunes are huge sand dunes-part of which are located on the coast of Lake Michigan. It seems easy going down, but it's a slippery climb (requiring stamina I don't possess) to get back up. We sat and watched a man and his little daughter struggle for more than an hour to move up perhaps 5 feet.

I think if the danger is clearly apparent and/or noted (which would imply negligence in continuing forth) charges should be made.

In the case of the missing family in Oregon, there should not be a charge due to the fact that the road was not clearly marked closed and the close off had been vandalized. I guess that means I am mostly no with a case by case disclaimer.

[Kingshakabobo]

47. IIRC, isn't that the place they will.........

......"rescue" with a helicopter and bill you $3000 for the ride up??

This case is a little different because the "rescue" entails picking up someone too tired to climb and not in any real danger.....maybe a hell of an inconvenience but not in danger.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. No, it's the Coast Guard and it's real danger. There is no other

way up that slope. :shrug: Sorry, it's a real "rescue" with real Coast Guard.

[Kingshakabobo]

54. That's the place I was thinking about...

I know it's the coast guard.........and I know the only way out is up (or a very long swim). While I would agree that there are some people that really need rescue, there have been some people that are just plain too tired to climb......$3000 dollars worth of tired. I'm not disagreeing with you.

[pdxmom]

22. Oregon has a search and rescue reimbursement law. The maximum

allowed is $500. It requires that they can only seek reimbursement when:

(a) Reasonable care was not exercised by the individuals for whose benefit the search and rescue activities are conducted; or

(b) Applicable laws were violated by such individuals. (ORS 401.590)

I have absolutely no problem with this law. It isn't a "must" repay. It is that they government entity "may" request repayment up to $500. Often, they don't bother asking for it.

Many people are out on that mountain now, looking for these 3 men, and putting their own lives at risk in the process. If they were the cause of their own plight, then I don't have a problem with a hand-slap of $500. Anyone who doesn't take the Oregon wilderness and weather seriously, and puts themselves and others looking for them in life-threatening situations deserves some type of "punishment", even if it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs or losses that might be incurred.

The situation on Mt. Hood isn't new. It isn't the first or the last time it will happen this winter. We see these all the time in the local paper, and often it doesn't get more coverage than a small blurb in the back of the Metro section. The national news, for whatever reason, wants to play this up like it's a giant breaking news item. It isn't. It's life in Oregon, when you have people that insist on taking on the Oregon wilderness and weather and either have no respect and aren't prepared or run into bad luck.

[cboy4]

29. Thanks pdxmom for posting the reimbursement law info....

It's interesting and clears a lot of things up!

[NV Whino]

26. Hey, let's support the lawyers

Do you realize what a can of legal worms this would open up?

[derby378]

27. No freakin' way

Our taxes pay the rescuers' salaries. Next thing you know, someone will propose abandoning the search for anyone lost in a national park if their credit score falls below 600. No way in Hell.

[RB TexLa]

30. I was shocked to find out that you don't have to reimburse

for these things. And even more shocked that the Coast Guard doesn't get reimbursed if they spend days finding you at sea.

[leftyclimber]

34. Complex question.

First, the caveats:
- I am a native Oregonian (out of state for grad school right now), lived there for 28 of my 35 years.
- I am in grad school for parks and rec management, so I'm about to get verbose, because I study this crap. :)
- I am, as my screen name indicates, a climber. I know a lot of people who have been rescued, and I also know a lot of people who work in SAR. I fall into neither of these categories.
- I just got out of a final and am now going to hold forth about something I actually give a damn about. :)

First. There is a difference between a bunch of skilled mountaineers (these guys are) making what was supposed to be a one-day ascent of Mount Hood (which, from people who talked to them before they went, it was) carrying bivouac gear in case of emergency (which they are) who know how to dig a snow cave (which they do), and the 17-year-old kid with no climbing skills that Portland Mountain Rescue had to go get earlier this year because he decided he needed to climb Hood before his 18th birthday. In tennis shoes. The first group of guys (the ones who are up there now) are experienced climbers with solid climbing resumes who thought they could make a weather window, someone got hurt, and things went tits-up. The second, the kid, is an idiot.

Now. Who gets to pay for the rescue? The guy who calls his wife and kids on his cell phone to say things aren't going so hot (family calls the sheriff, SAR swings into action)? The parents of the kid who ran off without their permission and started up a mountain he had no business on? All of them? None of them?

Second. Just 45 or so minutes south of Mount Hood, in Salem, where I grew up, there is a search and rescue National Guard wing. These guys use some of these SAR missions as training missions for when they Actually Have To Rescue Other Soldiers. When asked, they say they are happy to go out and rescue whomever. Which also includes lost hikers, lost kids, and so forth.

Which leads me to Third. Almost a third of rescues in National Parks (quickest source I could find ... although this is happening on a National Forest) are for SWIMMERS. WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE, FOLKS? I mean, really! Damn, shouldn't those swimmers be paying for their own rescues? :sarcasm:

Less than three percent of big SAR operations are for climbers. This info is posted at the American Alpine Club web site. Once I post this, go pee, and pay for a little more parking, I'd be happy to find a source that doesn't indicate as much bias, if you would prefer. It just happened to be the first one I found.

The difference is that climbing is much more dramatic, brings up references to "Into Thin Air" and other pop-culture climbing works, and is much more fun to gawk at than Aunt Tillie getting a cramp and being swept downstream.

Fourth. Portland Mountain Rescue and the other SAR groups that are out there are volunteers. They choose to be out there. This is very important to them. They train for it regularly and have mad, mad, mad skills. They do it to give back to the community. If you go to their Web site, you will also notice that they were out looking for that little boy at Crater Lake, and do other backcountry rescue stuff. (So slip 'em a donation if you have a few bucks. They provide a great service.)

Fifth. If you're interested in the concept of no-rescue wilderness (and federally designated Wilderness is different from The Forest or The Mountain, and a whole nother topic), check out Daniel Dustin's stuff. It's pretty interesting. I kind of like it.

Last (because I've been writing for a while, I'm about to get a parking ticket, and I REALLY have to pee). Different areas have different rescue rules. If you do a big wall in Yosemite with a down sleeping bag, it gets wet, you get hypothermic, and YOSAR has to save your sorry ass, you will pay for the rescue. If you have a synthetic bag (doesn't lose as much insulation quality when it's wet), you will not. Other places rescue under all circumstances. I think Gates of the Arctic, which is in the Brooks Range, in Alaska, might have a no-rescue Wilderness policy, but I'm not sure of any others. Why not? In large part, Fear Of Litigation. Federal agencies are afraid that people will sue the agency's ass off if they don't do something about a lost person, whether they're on foot, in a boat, up a mountain, whatever. Whether that person wanted to be rescued or not.

Having an accident is not the same as committing arson. The latter is a crime. The former is just, well, accidental.

By now everything's probably as clear as mud. It's certainly not black-and-white. Personal disclosure: I get REALLY pissed off when the Coasties have to rescue some pea-brain who got caught on a rock at high tide. Ditto for the 17-year-old who just Had To Climb Hood Before He Was 18. I do not get pissed, however, when SAR has to look for a little boy who's wandered off or some experienced climbers who got into a bad situation -- or hikers on the Pacific Crest Trail, for that matter. (On edit, I still don't think any of the above should have to pay.) YMMV.

[The Deacon]

37. And Lest We Forget

Our "average" rescue around here would go something like: "79-year-old Female, Race: Black. Alzheimer's. Last seen wearing house coat (Flower pattern, Rose on Pink) & slippers near vincinty of home approximately 2300."

Who do we charge here? The husband who fell asleep during the local news?

[leftyclimber]

38. My point exactly. nt.

[shadowknows69]

35. Our taxes are supposed to cover it

If my taxes are paying for blowing up buildings in Iraq then they'd better damn well cover rescuing my ass in my own country. I'd go to jail before I paid.

[dysfunctional press]

39. only if they've broken the law...

intentionally.

[BurtWorm]

40. Absolutely not!

Should people be billed for services a fire department renders if their home is on fire? Of course not. Societies have an obligation to care for their members. That's why we have taxes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. Jesus Christ...we're trying to have a SOCIETY here!!!

Maybe we should just let missing people die.

I mean, if this reimbursement crowd believes that society has a duty to save people, then they cannot at the same time believe that it is a matter of exchange value. That's the funny thing about DUTY: you can expect no recompense for it.

It is an interesting question you pose, though. What it demonstrates, for my money, is the relentless privatization of everything. Marx once said that capitalism would engulf every aspect of social life, even the most honorable, and that it would make them dishonorable. People often interpret him to be speaking about the absolute explosion of prostitution during the Victorian period in London, but he was really talking about stuff like this. The distinction is between "duty," which is a pre-capitalist concept (really a notion borrowed from gift economies), and "exchange," or payment, the capitalist notion par excellence (everything becomes an exchange value, etc.).

Duty, as Kant described so well in the the second critique, can expect no recompense. It cannot be exchanged for anything. It must be done regardless of utility or payment. Honor, similarly, is a qualitative thing - it can't be quantified for the purposes of exchange; it exceeds reduction into the universal equivalent (money). When we say that society has a duty to save life (and we say this implicitly through the very existence of search and rescue teams), then we are saying society should expect no recompense for the exercise of that duty. It is given freely precisely because it is a (social) moral imperative. Imagine a society in which it were not an imperative, where you would decide case by case whether to send out the search teams - based on the capacity to pay for the services! Such a society would be unthinkable, but that is the very kind of society envisioned by privatization.

The very question - should rescued parties have to pay - not only envisions the possibility of such a society; it assumes that such a society is desirable. You can't have it both ways: you can't have a moral duty to save (any given) life AND a demand for recompense. Yet another contradiction thrown up by the capitalist social formation.

[The Deacon]

45. Or Simpler:

"Greater Love hath no man, but that he would lay down his life that his friend should live." From which the SAR Community takes its motto: "That Others May Live."

[Kickin_Donkey]

68. Hey, that's a great post, well put.

[seemunkee]

48. American Alpine Club offers rescue insurance

http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pages/page/100

[leftyclimber]

49. Self-delete.

Got my facts wrong. Sorry.

[AZBlue]

53. If they've gone against posted signs and warnings, then yes.

If they've simply gotten lost in acceptable and open terrain, no.

We have the stupid driver and the stupid hiker laws here in AZ and I support them both!

[SoCalDem]

55. It depends on the circumstance.

I remember parents being billed for the rescue of some teens who got lost while snowboarding.
They had been warned about "off limits" areas, and chose to go there anyway.. Their parents were billed several thousand dollars for their rescue. ( as a parent I would gladly pay to have my child's life saved).

"Accidental" incidents are another thing.

People who climb mountains should not necessarily expect to get "free rescues" when they put themselves into dangerous situations.

every one of the would-be rescuers is also risking his/her life to save the person(s) they are looking for, so it's not a minor detail.

States are hard-pressed for money these days, and if a person can pay, I see nothing wrong with reimbursement..in some circumstances.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. I don't know.

If you get in a car accident, should you have to reimburse the police officers and firemen and paramedics, and the helicopter pilot who flies you to the hospital?

[cboy4]

57. I totally agree with you, and I'm not trying to nitpick, but

you are actually billed for ground or air ambulance transportation to the hospital.

Of course, if you're lucky enough to have insurance, the insurance company picks up the tab. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Yeah, but it's terrible, ain't it?

I can't imagine them doing that in countries with socialized medicine.

[cboy4]

62. Especially since they can probably charge whatever the eff they

want for the "ride!"

[PeaceProgProsp]

58. So, only rich people can get rescued without being impoverished

as a result.

Should poor people stay out of the woods?

I'm totally willing to treat search and rescue as a loss leader that proves to our citizens that we care about them.

[cboy4]

61. Is that a rhetorical question? I mean, as far as I know, people are not

getting billed.

I was just throwing out the question after hearing someone on the radio suggesting people should have to pay.

[MazeRat7]

59. I had a fall climbing about 14yrs ago and I had to pay....

They air-lifted me out and took me to a trauma center... damn that was an expensive helicopter ride. It was however covered by my medical insurance.

MZr7

[SoCalDem]

63. and worth every penny

:loveya:

[MazeRat7]

65. yup...absolutly. -nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

64. As a Deterent? Has some value

Charging people some amount for the really stupid. Probably has some benefit as a deterent to keep from overloading rescue services. The trick is deciding what is truly accidental and figuring what part of the actual costs of the rescue should be charged as a punative measure.

[Rosemary2205]

66. When I got hit by the drunk I got a bill for the lifeflight.

$1750. I sent it to the insurance but I was quite surprised.

An idiot neighbor fell asleep with a burning cig and burnt down his house. He got a bill from the fire dept. which was paid by his home insurance just before they dropped his ass. It was his second fire claim in 5 years because of his own stupidity.

[TriMetFan]

67. These guys should be charged.

Why these guys didn't have Mountain Climbing Beacons is be on me. They only cost about 5 bucks to rent. I just hope that the people out there looking for these men don't get hurt. We are going to get very high winds in the next 36 hours. On the coast over 100 mph hr. and here in Portland up to 60 mph, so who know how bad it is going to be on Mt. Hood.

[chknltl]

69. Perhaps in the case where entry requires a permit:

I believe one needs a permit to climb many of our mountains and go camping in some of our wilderness areas. This is done in those areas to control the volume of traffic. Perhaps a small insurance fee could be tacked on to the permit.

[Marie26]

70. Sure

And then the government can sue them for the millions if they don't have the money. And then "search and rescue" insurance can spring up to guarantee people rescue operations. And then we can have bigger, better "search & rescues" for the elite few who can afford it. And then the government can decide not to rescue people at all w/o insurance to pay. Think of the millions corporate insurance companies can make! No, thanks.