Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56

Thread: Rescue Searchers Argue that Lost Hikers Should Pay Rescue Costs

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Anna, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default Rescue Searchers Argue that Lost Hikers Should Pay Rescue Costs

    A New Hampshire Fish and Game (DFG) officer wants the hiker who “did everything wrong” to foot the bill for the rescue team that was dispatched on the lost hiker’s behalf. Department of Fish and Game Sgt. Wayne Saunders said a hiker from Sandwich, Massachusetts set out to hike Mount Madison late in the day on Monday with no food, no water, no hiking gear and no flashlight. He only had two t-shirts and a pair of knee-high rubber boots.

    Mark Walsh, 49, only had one piece of gear – his cellphone. He lost track of Pine Link Trail and called wardens for help just before 6 p.m. Walsh had not eaten much all day besides Slim Fast and because temperatures are known to drop to the 30s in the mountains, Sgt. Saunders decided to send in a whole crew of rescue workers. Nine people responded from the DFG, Androscoggin Valley Search and Rescue Team and American Mountain Club searchers.

    Rescuers finally found him “a good distance” off the trail at 11 p.m. that night. After his condition was evaluated, and he was given food and water, hiked back down the mountain, the time was 4 a.m. Sgt. Saunders had to attend a law enforcement course in Concord early the next day after just one hour of sleep. In an interview with the Union Leader, Sgt. Saunders vented his frustration at aiding the ill-prepared and careless.

    “I am fed up, and it just doesn’t get through to people,” Saunders said. “We try to put it out to people; we talk about this stuff all the time. Maybe it’s just because we live around here and most of us know not to go in the mountains unless we’re prepared; I don’t know.”

    The DFG has the option of recommending to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office that the state seek reimbursement for rescue services. Sgt. Saunders said he will definitely recommend that the department seek payment from Walsh.

    Similarly, rescue workers at Grand Teton National Park have proposed that participants in outdoor activities pay an additional “special use” fee for particularly hazardous adventures like two Wyoming men’s backcountry ski trip in April of 2011.

    Walker Pannell Kuhl, 27, of Salt Lake City, Utah and Gregory Seftick, 31, of Columbia Falls, Montana had gone a weekend backcountry ski trip in a remote part of Grand Teton National Park. Kuhl, a federal bank examiner, and Seftick, an emergency room doctor, intended to explore the Teepe Pillar and Teepe Glacier features of the 13,770 foot Grand Teton.

    On April 18, when the men didn’t show up for work. Kuhl’s girlfriend notified authorities. An extensive search was initiated. Touted as one of the most expensive searches in Grand Teton history, rescuers found the men six days after they were reported missing. Three more feet of snow fell, the rescuers were grounded many times because of bad weather and probing the snow with standard 10-foot telescoping metal poles was not enough to reach the skiers. In total, the rescue-recovery operation cost $115,000, more than double of any previous search on Grand Teton. After six days of one of the most costly search-and-rescue operations in Wyoming history, the two men’s bodies were recovered still tucked in their sleeping bags after a massive avalanche on April 16 buried them in 13 feet of snow.

    The county coroner surmised that the two men died of asphyxiation within minutes of being covered. Rangers at the scene didn’t even find ice crystals near the men’s faces which means that the men were not breathing for any significant amount of time after the slide.

    Typically, rescue operations are simple. They range from a child wandering away from his/her parents, a senior who becomes disoriented or boaters who have too much to drink.

    Yet in total for 2009, Park Service workers across the nation conducted 3,568 search and rescues that cost a total of more than $4.8 million. The remote and rugged parks are the costliest. Alaska’s Denali National Park has had three prolonged searches that cost between $118,000 to $132,000. Some officials have pointed out the fact that none of the people rescued paid the bill and neither did the families of Kuhl nor Seftick.

    In a particular point of contention, taxpayer dollars covered the costs. The FAQ on Grand Canyon’s website says that emergency rescue operations are covered by the taxpayer, but those rescued must pay for any ground ambulance transport or supporting commercial aeromedical transportation.

    In light of the national budget crisis, Denali and other parks have explored the idea of charging an additional “special use” fee for high-risk dangerous adventures. Denali even proposed a $500-per-climber fee to scale the peak that the park is named after.

    Climbing organizations contend that $500 is too much, but say that a fee is not a bad idea.

    A former risk assessment officer with the Park Service in Washington, D.C. and current Recreation and Tourism Studies Professor at the University of North Dakota, Travis Heggie said he thinks the cost of such rescue operations is much higher than the published figures. “I think if all the dollar figures were added — such as hidden equipment wear-and-tear and medical costs — there would be a doubling of the true search and rescue figures,” he postulated.

    Moreover, the problem is not the money, which even at the $10 million mark is a fraction of the National Park Service’s $2.75 billion annual budget, but the greater issue is that it takes away money from other valuable programs.

    Currently, the money to fund search-and-rescue is taken from general funds, but Heggie argues that there should be a fund set aside for those operations since it’s inevitable that they will happen.

    Others have proposed that high-risk adventurers be required to arrange private travel insurance that will pay for search, rescue and medical treatment as European climbers do.

    But some of the most experienced rangers are opposed to charging those who they rescue. Park Service Spokesman in Washington D.C. Jeffrey Olson told WyoFile, “our policy is that if we start charging for search and rescue, people would not ask for help or would delay asking for help.”
    --GiLLiGaNN--


  2. #2
    Senior Member Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SE Alaska
    Posts
    3,171

    Default

    $4.8 mill? Whoopde do. I bet one trailer park gets that much a yr in handouts.
    I had a compass, but without a map, it's just a cool toy to show you where oceans and ice are.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Anna, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default

    I dont agree by any means that the rescued should be liable for the expense for the rescue. but at the same time, something has to be done to prevent those who have zero knowledge about the surroundings and still decide to try their luck.
    --GiLLiGaNN--

  4. #4
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    What is the reference source for this article?
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm on the fence here. SAR efforts are incredibly expensive and the numbers cited don't take into account the lost wages and/or vacation time to the volunteers who make up these teams. It's not all LEOs that respond to SAR call outs. However, I don't know that charging people for the service is the right answer - any more than charging people for 911 calls would be allowable or advisable.

    The problem of super-expensive SAR call-outs to find dumb people who didn't do the right things to prepare was egregious enough among hunters in Wyoming that we passed a law some time ago that forbids non-resident hunters from entering any designated wilderness areas unless they are accompanied by a guide (a position that can be served by any Wyoming resident, not necessarily a licensed guide). Similar restrictions have not been placed on non-hunters.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Old GI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dunnellon, FL
    Posts
    1,783

    Default

    "Fee-for-Service" for emergency responses have been going on for some time; mostly in the volunteer fire department area, the stated reason is usually "due to budget limitations.". When i was a County EM Director, we never charged for the County volunteer SAR responses. I just found out the County disbanded the SAR Team and gave the mission to the Fire Departments; yes, the very ones starting Fee-for-Service.
    When Wealth is Lost, Nothing is Lost;
    When Health is Lost, Something is Lost;
    When Character is Lost, ALL IS LOST!!!!!!!

    Colonel Charles Hyatt circa 1880

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Anna, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default

    http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/rescu...-rescue-costs/ This is the source for the article.
    --GiLLiGaNN--

  8. #8
    Senior Member SARKY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    It is one thing if you have made all the preps you should have, It is a whole nother story when you are an irresponsible soot putting yourself and others in danger. The irresponsible ones need to be held accountable .
    I know what hunts you.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Anna, Illinois
    Posts
    36

    Default

    I can agree with you Sarky when you put it like that. The irresponsible should be held responsible. They could also possibly institute a check in box. When you sign in with where you are going, what you are wearing, and your time frame and then mandate it.
    --GiLLiGaNN--

  10. #10
    Cold Heartless Breed tsitenha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kanata
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Those who get lost or need extraction because of their own negligence should be held responsible, but to what degree? I would think community service in the vein of taking a SAR course and participate SAR rescues might be a viable course of action.
    Bear Clan

    I was born with nothing,
    with hard work and deligence I still have most of it
    this week a lot less...must be a hole in my pocket

  11. #11
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiLLiGaNN View Post
    http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/rescu...-rescue-costs/ This is the source for the article.
    Would have been nice to quote this up front.
    Just copy and paste is just plain plagiarism.
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  12. #12
    Cold Heartless Breed tsitenha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kanata
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Don't they have cough medicine for "plagiarism"
    Bear Clan

    I was born with nothing,
    with hard work and deligence I still have most of it
    this week a lot less...must be a hole in my pocket

  13. #13

    Default

    No I don't think rescuee's should have to pay a fee for being rescued.
    I find the idea akin to toll roads, double charging the taxpayers!
    How long have our tax dollars payed for the parks, the upkeep and the salary of the parks employees?
    It is unfortunate that some people go unprepared into the wild. There are some situations that are unforseen.
    Those two that were buried in the avalance come to mind.
    I never like the idea of giving yet more money to the government!
    Don't run, you'll only die tired!

  14. #14
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,828

    Default

    Who's defining fully prepared and ill prepared? What standard is it judged against? You might go out "fully prepared" and I come along and rescue you and judge you ill prepared. Just the fact that you have to be rescued hints that you may not have been prepared enough.
    Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.

  15. #15
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,362

    Default

    If there is an injury involved the rescue should be free. Any other cost should be paid by the dufas that needed saving.

    The tax payers should not have to pick up the tab when you wreck your car, you probably did not intend to do that either. Same for having more testosterone than brains. Just because you own an SAK and a pair of cargo pants does not mean you know what you are doing.

    You do not put a beginning skier on the advanced course. You are negligent if you let him out there. Resorts get sued for that kind of negligence.

    Same for hiking trails. I know of one wilderness area where you sign in, they check your gear and give you a quick quizz before letting you out alone. Big South Fork requires back country permits. Glacier National Park at one time had a required "Backpack school" you had to clear before hiking the back country.

    If you do not have the training or equipment or it is your first walk in the woods stay on the senic overlook, the park campground or go to that Park Resort Inn we were talking about in that other thread!

    If you are going to be stupid you better have the cash to cover it.
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  16. #16
    Senior Member BENESSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gotham
    Posts
    9,676

    Default

    +1 kyrat--on all points.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Keweenaw Peninsula of upper Michigan, about the middle of the south shore of Lake Superior
    Posts
    468

    Default

    Our state and national parks are woefully under funded and park personell generally do not make above minimum wages if that. Why should everyone have to pay for idiots that put themselves survival situations for lack of knowlege and equipment. Rescuing some one who is injured in an accident is far different in my opinion than rescuiing someone who blindly goes in harms way. I support requiring insurance coverage/training course requirements/equipment requirements before entering back country enviroments. Outdoor recreation and tourism is my area of professional study and teaching and one glaring under reported issue is urban dwellers going into back country under prepared and expecting the goverment (ie: the park rangers) to save their miserable butts when the outback turns out NOT to be a walk in Central Park.
    Last edited by Old Professor; 05-11-2012 at 05:34 PM. Reason: misspelling

  18. #18
    Super-duper Moderator Sarge47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The People's Republic of Illinois
    Posts
    9,449
    Blog Entries
    32

    Cool well now...

    So did they fine the two dead guys found in their sleeping bags? Listen up people, SAR personnel also die out there looking for lost hikers! Who's going to foot the bill for all of the resources used? This has been already going on in other places. Helicopter and airplane fuel cost big bucks these days. I say that if you're dumb enough to go out on a trail without the proper gear you shouldn't even be allowed outside of your house without your mommy!
    SARGE
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
    Albert Einstein

    Proud father of a US Marine....SEMPER FI!

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,828

    Default

    So based on that logic if you call the police because of a home invasion and you don't own a gun they should charge you?
    There have been a lot names bandied around all based on the individual's own skill/training or at least on their perceived skill/training. If there is no standard established to base your actions against how can you say what is right or wrong. And where are all the folks that harp about the guberment interfering with more laws? I thought for sure there would be a bevvy of posts saying the government doesn't have any right to keep you out of the wilderness. And let's face it. If you thought going to the woods might wind up costing you a medivac flight as well as the cost of a dozen folks called out to aid you, you'd think twice about going out there. And if something did happen you might not call because you don't want to pay. And what about when someone else calls about you? Do you still get charged? You're not the one that called.

    This is a pretty slippery slope you all seem to want to tread down. It's nice to know that all of you are so well trained and geared up that nothing bad would ever happen to you. Why don't we just pay an annual access fee added to our taxes to pay for SAR? After all, it's my opinion that I'm the only one trained enough and with the right amount of gear to never need SAR. The rest of you dufuses should know better.
    Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.

  20. #20
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Rick, good point.....We don't need more rules and laws......and guess what?....Stuff is gonna happen, no matter how much you charge or what rules you make.
    I can see it now, 'Sir, will it be a credit or debit card you will be using today?.......I'ts a holiday so the rates are double.

    Another step to the Nanny state.
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •