Should stranded adventurers pay for own rescue?
Some states are considering billing victims for back-country rescues. But one group warns that the policy may discourage people from getting help.
The blogosphere is afire with praise for an in-depth and amazing multimedia report by the New York Times about the world-class skiers who were caught up in a deadly avalanche last winter in Washington state.
The report focuses on the perils facing skiers who go into the unmonitored back country. It also coincides with news that several states -- including those where skiing, hiking and other outdoor recreation are big business -- are considering legislation to bill victims of back-country mishaps for some rescue operations.
Lawmakers in Wyoming are considering a bill that would let local law enforcement charge for search-and-rescue (SAR) missions in cases where they believe the victims put themselves into harm’s way.
The legislation came after an incident last winter: a $14,000 operation to rescue three snowmobilers trapped in a mountain pass. When state officials asked the snowmobilers to help pay for some of the costs of their rescue, the three hired an attorney -- who questioned if the state had the authority to ask for such a payment.
In response, the proposed measure would let rescue payments "be left up to the discretion of the sheriff (involved)," Wyoming representative Keith Gingery, the bill’s sponsor, told the Jackson Hole News and Guide. "They'll say which ones are victims or whether someone may have contributed to the situation."
If the measure is passed, Wyoming would join a growing list of states and counties that allow some sort of fee for search-and-rescue operations.
"If you’re getting rescued, there should be an expectation you’re going to participate in the cost of that rescue," New Hampshire senate Republican leader Jeb Bradley said in an interview with the Associated Press.
Lawmakers are hoping these fees will not only help fund local SAR operations, but encourage adventurers to be more cautious in back country areas.
Colorado has a "Corsair" card that residents and visitors can purchase for $3 a year or $12 for five years. Colorado.gov says that by purchasing the card, "you are contributing to the (state’s) Search and Rescue Fund, which will reimburse these teams for costs incurred in your search and rescue.” But it also warns the card is not insurance, nor does it pay for medical transport.
Grand County, Utah, meanwhile, lists a sliding scale of fees on its website for SAR operations -- with collectable costs anywhere from $250 for a small incident, classified as taking less than three hours with six or fewer responders, to $750 dollars for a "large incident" requiring more than three hours with seven or more responders. Those fees do not include extras like helicopter rental, fuel costs and any damage to equipment.
But the idea of billing the victims of outdoor adventures also has its opponents.
In an online position statement, the National Association for Search and Rescue worries that some victims in life-threatening situations may put money concerns over safety and decline to contact potential rescuers.
"A perceived or actual belief that the subject of a SAR mission will be billed for the lifesaving actions undertaken on their behalf must not delay or interfere with a timely call for help," the statement notes.
"Delays can place SAR personnel in extreme danger and unnecessarily compound and extend the length of the SAR mission," the statement adds. "Because of these factors, and to eliminate the fear of being unable to pay for having one’s life saved, SAR services should be rendered to persons in danger or distress without subsequent cost recovery from the person(s) assisted unless prior arrangements have been made."
More from Money Now
People should absolutely be bearing the cost of their rescues from the back country. Taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay for other people to risk their lives having a good time. Once you decide to explore off marked trails, you should expect to own the risk associated with your adventures. I like the idea of some sort of insurance program to cover the SAR costs - then you can share the risk with your fellow adventurers. Note that I say this as an avid hiker myself.
Hellooooooooo, Maybe people will be a little more careful with their extreme sports and dangerous activities....Especially, if a plane or chopper flies over with a banner reading:
"MAKE PEACE WITH YOUR MAKER...."
If I drive my truck into the ditch....I have to pay the price or all the bills.
It maybe a bill for some or all of the cost fo rescue operations or a permit fee for going into these high risk places, YES, they should pay. Many, no let's say most , people have no idea of how much these rescue operations cost, even if, as most are, manned by trained volunteers. These volunteers who paid for their own training and give freely of their time still use expensive equipment that must be maintained. The horses they ride, the trailers to haul them, the snowmobiles and their trailers, the climbing ropes, harnesses and other climbing gear, not to mention the planes and helicopters that cost hundreds of dollars and hour to keep in the air. I agree with Beck, an insurance policy would be a great idea. I'm sure that some companies would be glad to work something out, with premiums based on levels of experience, training, location of site, weather. After all they have been doing that for years with cars, trucks, planes, boats. And of course, no insurance, it's your bill.
Since these activities are essentially "entertainment" they most certainly should be billed if their entertainment creates a big cost like a rescue. It most certainly should NOT fall on taxpayers to cover this. If they want to avoid these costs, they can buy insurance to cover it. Of course, if the rescue is not related to entertainment, that's another matter. If someone's child has gotten lost, of course there should be a concerted effort to find them, regardless of cost. But most of this stuff is extreme sportsters, and that is just their own entertainment.
We pay taxes for various reasons, we pay insurances for other reasons, we pay extra on premiums;
For anything out of the ordinary or an "established set" of rules & regs in a given area or region.
Now some places we pay more taxes, for better services; Or even when more services are needed.
Insurance on the other hand can increase for more coverage, or even bad behavior.
Even sometimes through a fault of NOT our own making.
Certain Gov mandates in some States, are included in this...Like "no fault."
In the "old days" if an adult or child went missing...The Community turned out to hunt..Still do most places...But then the Calvary goes wild, with planes,helicopters,horseback, ATVs and boats....
Then just "some guy and a dog" finds the lost....We found one kid in a small river/creek that way.
I believe the Coast Guard has the "duty" to take care of boats and ships; But we also pay for many permits,taxes and insurances..
So I also believe other sports(some do) pay those same fees, taxes, insurances and extra premiums/fees if deemed somewhat dangerous....Pay to Play, but never completely restrict a person's lifestyle.....If someone chooses to leave the Reservation on their own? THEN they are on THEIR OWN.
Should you pay with a hangover if you decide to go out and get drunk?
Should I go on about people taking risks,
or should I just ask the government to pay for my speeding tickets?
Acting stupid is costly and it was a stupid question in the first place
Why I just love sitting here at my desk working and then paying for stranded skiers having fun on the slopes.
We keep comparing "CRIMES" against a fellow Citizen...To a dangerous BEHAVIOR towards ONESELF, associated with known RESULTS...
If a SKIER,SNOWBOARDER,SBiler,HUNTER or HIKER gets "mugged" in the Wild, that's a CRIME.
If they do something inherentally dangerous on purpose....That is STUPITY.
If you cannot understand the difference......You are the LATTER.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
[BRIEFING.COM] The headlines generally favored Tuesday being another good day for the stock market. Instead, it was just a mixed day with modest point changes on either side of the unchanged mark for the major indices.
For the most part, the stock market was a sideshow. The main trading events were seen in the commodity and Treasury markets, both of which saw some decent-sized losses within their respective complex.
Dollar strength was at the heart of the weakness in ... More
More Market News
The S&P 500 manages to keep a deathgrip on 2,000, but key areas of the market are already buckling under pressure.
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'