# So Who SHOULD Pay for the Backcountry Rescue of a Hiker or Skier?



## thetrailboss (Jul 21, 2009)

Hammer's post:  



> I'm all for going after irresponsible hikers (the Eagle Scout rescue is a case in point), but I've been thinking about what would be considered "reasonable and prudent" preparations for a hike (or whatever the standard is). While I believe I've always been prepared on hikes I've gone on, I really don't know if I've met the "official" standard.



And *this incident* as well as *a more recent hiking mishap* have me asking, who SHOULD pay for these rescues?  

State and local officials say that those who are negligent and irresponsible should foot the bill for their rescue costs.  It appears that this is meant to deter people from being so careless.  But where is the line?  

Vermont has a state law, often quoted, that states when a skier/rider uses a ski area to access backcountry locations, and becomes lost or is not prepared, and is in need of a rescue, then he/she is liable for the costs.  

New Hampshire has a same law that applies to hikers, as discussed with the April incident resulting in a $25,000 bill to the 18-year old hiker.  

Some say that such harsh laws deter people from calling for help until it is too late.  Others say that people need to smarten up and not put others at risk.  

So what would you do?  What rule would you write and why?   Would there be situations when the general public should pay for a rescue?  

Have you been rescued?  

And what can we do to prevent such rescues in the first place?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 21, 2009)

Define Back Country

This is definitely gray area here.  At ski resorts, it is expected that all within boundary terrain is swept by ski patrol at the end of the day.  Why is not a similar standard set for state parks or maintained trail systems?

I have a hard time seeing how the enforcement can be consistent.  Should an injured hiker who needs to be carried out be treated the same as one who happened upon unexpected weather?

I don't know the correct answer, but it certainly seems like it would be difficult to enforce consistently and as with other areas of life, people who have the dough or connections to afford a good lawyer could probably get out of paying.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 21, 2009)

It should be left to the judgement of the rescuers, on a consensus basis, subject to verification and review by a group associated with the rescuing organization. Seems the'yre the best able to determine the difference between "shit happens" and "Dumbass"


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Define Back Country
> 
> This is definitely gray area here.  At ski resorts, it is expected that all within boundary terrain is swept by ski patrol at the end of the day.  Why is not a similar standard set for state parks or maintained trail systems?



Good point.  Outside the ski area boundaries, and adopting the SOLO/WOFA Definition, anything that is more than ONE MILE from the trailhead.  



> I have a hard time seeing how the enforcement can be consistent.  Should an injured hiker who needs to be carried out be treated the same as one who happened upon unexpected weather?



From what I have read, it has to do with the level of preparedness of the participant...and what they were doing.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 21, 2009)

My point of view:

Skiing in-bounds, the sled dog ride to the bottom and the first aid is assumed to be part of your lift ticket fee.  I don't think anybody has an argument with that.   

If I'm offshore and need to call SeaTow, they get $200/hour to go out there and haul my sorry ass back to the dock.  I have insurance to cover that and I've actually used it twice on my power boat.   I have two marine VHF radios, a GPS, a current chart, and a compass.   It's not a dire emergency but somebody has to come out and tow me back in.  I carry towing insurance.

If I show up in the emergency room, they expect to be paid.  I carry health insurance to cover that eventuality.   My health insurance also covers the ambulance ride to the hospital if I have a heart attack at home.  If I crash my car, my auto insurance pays to get my car towed and repaired.  I don't see what's so special about back country skiers and hikers?   If you carry insurance, it pays.  Otherwise, you pay.  That's how it works in Europe.


----------



## drjeff (Jul 21, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> It should be left to the judgement of the rescuers, on a consensus basis, subject to verification and review by a group associated with the rescuing organization. Seems the'yre the best able to determine the difference between "shit happens" and "Dumbass"



Agree!  However in my book the uber experienced hiker who goes out in horrendous winter weather to try and summit Mt Washington and gets in trouble is just as much a dumb a$$ as the folks in teva's carrying nothing more than a 20oz bottle of poland spring and using their iphone app telling them how to hike and gets lost on a perfect sunny day.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 21, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Agree!  However in my book the uber experienced hiker who goes out in horrendous winter weather to try and summit Mt Washington and gets in trouble is just as much a dumb a$$ as the folks in teva's carrying nothing more than a 20oz bottle of poland spring and using their iphone app telling them how to hike and gets lost on a perfect sunny day.



And they should both be charged for the rescue. Decently prepared, out for a jaunt on Washington when it dumps 5 feet of snow on you in 20 minutes at noon in July, well, that's a freebie.


----------



## Marc (Jul 21, 2009)

Bernard Madoff.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 21, 2009)

This is a tough question. I don't believe in any rules/laws where enforcement is subject to the judgment of any group or individual. I am not necessarily opposed to lost or injured hikers being charged for their rescue, but in my opinion it either needs to be subject to everyone, or based on specific quantifiable criteria. However, charging for every rescue I suspect would be unpopular, and coming up with a black and white definition of an unprepared hiker would be extremely difficult.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 21, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> This is a tough question. I don't believe in any rules/laws where enforcement is subject to the judgment of any group or individual. I am not necessarily opposed to lost or injured hikers being charged for their rescue, but in my opinion it either needs to be subject to everyone, or based on specific quantifiable criteria. However, charging for every rescue I suspect would be unpopular, and coming up with a black and white definition of an unprepared hiker would be extremely difficult.



I see no reason why the hiking/outing clubs can't offer insurance as part of their membership.   I joined BoatUS to take advantage of their cheap towing insurance.   If you want to play, you have to pay.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 21, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I see no reason why the hiking/outing clubs can't offer insurance as part of their membership.   I joined BoatUS to take advantage of their cheap towing insurance.   If you want to play, you have to pay.



I have no problem charging for all rescuces, especially if there were low cost low cost insurance options like you mention. I am not necessarily advocating for this either though. I guess I haven't thought about it enough to form a solid opinion. The only thing I feel strongly about is that is some people are going to be billed for their rescues and others aren't, the criteria for making that decision better be black and white.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 21, 2009)

So Geoff, when are you coming south and giving me a tour of Great Bay?  You can pick me up right in downtown Newmarket.  :grin:


----------



## madman (Jul 21, 2009)

If I ever get into a situation where I need rescue either by bad luck or bad planning I would be willing to pay. I have 40 yrs skiing and almost as many backpacking, Never needed rescue but if I ever do it will because of a serious problem and in life "nothing is free". I do like the idea of insurance and feel if you go into the woods on your own, but cant get out on your own you should pay.


----------



## 4aprice (Jul 21, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I joined BoatUS to take advantage of their cheap towing insurance.   If you want to play, you have to pay.



Ditto.  BoatUS has great programs.  They cover me for road towing as well.  

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Geoff (Jul 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> So Geoff, when are you coming south and giving me a tour of Great Bay?  You can pick me up right in downtown Newmarket.  :grin:



My boat is with the builder.  The turbodiesel was pulled out and I had him build me a 2 1/2 foot hull extension / swim platform / outboard mounting platform.   The project is done other than painting the hull with Imron and shelling out a large pile of green pieces of paper for a 250 hp outboard.   I've been unemployed so I stalled the project where it was a year ago.

I've had the boat in Newmarket a few times during fall foliage.   Great Bay rides are great when there are 10 foot swells out on the ocean.  With the turbodiesel, I could cruise at 45 mph so it didn't take long to get there from Portsmouth.   I used to race the Coast Guard guys.  With an empty fuel tank, I was slightly faster.   With my new setup, I should be much faster since I'm about 500 pounds lighter and 2 1/2 feet longer.   Sigh...  not this summer.


----------



## snowmonster (Jul 22, 2009)

Wow! $25K! Best argument to stay at home and play wii.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 22, 2009)

in europe your lift ticket covers rescue from on-piste incidents, but you are responsible for any off-piste incidents (which would include things like tree skiing in an unmarked glade on jay or sugarbush, for example).  you have the option to pay extra (5-10 euros) for insurance to cover off-piste incidents.

i'm not familiar with ski areas offering such extra insurance, but, maybe they should?

regarding backcountry hiking/skiing, does health insurance cover $25,000 search and rescue bills?  i have no idea.  seems like it should, or you should be able to buy extra coverage if that's your thing.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Jul 22, 2009)

preface- not trying to be a prick, just playing devil's advocate

so whats the difference between these incidents and Billski's most horrible accident, take away all the circumstance and you still have the same result, people needing help - 

SAR/volunteer rescue should be just like all other state funded supprt services, we already be paying (bi monthly in my case)  - the decision to bill people should be more like a driving ticket

what do you charge a family for finding your dead relative?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 22, 2009)

kingdom-tele said:


> preface- not trying to be a prick, just playing devil's advocate
> 
> so whats the difference between these incidents and Billski's most horrible accident, take away all the circumstance and you still have the same result, people needing help -
> 
> ...



The SAR teams would say that the difference is that there have been an increase of people who are underprepared for hiking and outdoor adventures who call for help.  If teams are busy going after people who did not prepare and put themselves at risk, there are less rescue personnel and resources for real emergencies.  

Plus, as with everything else, resources for such rescue teams are limited.


----------



## billski (Jul 23, 2009)

Having just been the beneficiary of SAR, having needed their services, I have a few observations, but no easy answers.

For starters, very few people who are rescued every go back and thank the SAR teams either by letter, phone or in person.  I absolutely made it my #1 priority once I could move again.  There is nothing worse than failing to show gratitude for all those that disrupted their personal lives and put themselves at risk to help a stranger.  And they do this over and over again.

Second, without SAR, my life, my livelihood and my family's future would have been hugely altered permanently.  How can one not be indebted to them or not think to reach out to them?

Many SARs and participating agencies are sorely underfunded.  The least a recipent can do is provide a donation.  I spoke with one SAR leader who's group has tried to jury-rig and hand-make rescue equipment because they, as volunteers cannot afford it.  They also share resources between groups constantly because of this.

The letters and phone calls went out first.  I am planning a donation, because without their work I would not be here and I'd have nothing.

I also listened on the way down the mountain in the litter as the crews related stories about how they had to go to court, give depositions and the like in many of their rescue cases.  It became clear there is a lot of off-mountain work that goes on after a rescue too.

So I get angry when people who are rescued don't demonstrate appreciation.  I also get pissed about frvilous lawsuits ("they didn't get there fast enough")  and I support F&G billing for rescue services when hiker negligence is involved.  You, as the rescuee owe them, one way or another.  The rescuee should also be damn thankful these groups even exist.  

I contstantly review what happened over and over and can't come up with anything I would do differently.  Regardless, I am still indebted to them, as they did what we as a group of hikers could not.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 24, 2009)

no question that any skier who randomly follows someone else's tracks into the woods should pay for their own rescue....AND pay a fine for having had to take advantage of precious resources that should have been employed for real emergencies.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 24, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> no question that any skier who randomly follows someone else's tracks into the woods should pay for their own rescue....AND pay a fine for having had to take advantage of precious resources that should have been employed for real emergencies.



Pay a fine for:

(a) An "emergency" being that when the trails are skied off, only a select few should have the woods and their goods (hence, the precious resources);

Or:

(b) An "emergency" meaning when there is someone who needs rescue more badly.

:wink:


----------



## Connecticut (Jul 28, 2009)

I made this suggestion to the Ragged Mountain Foundation for rock climbing along public and private land in Connecticut.  The same process could work for wilderness areas.

There could be insurance devoted to rescues and medical expenses in wilderness or mountainous areas.  Each person could pay a nominal fee for a one-time use, 7-day use, 1 month or year.  I'm thinking that this would probably not cost very much, but it takes away what feels like a right or a freedom.

The other end of things is the actual cost of rescue.  I'm willing to bet that if there was another optional rescue service, they could still provide the same level of care for about a quarter of the cost.  "Crazy Jose's discount search & rescue."  

Here is another point.  Does the Coast Guard charge for their rescues?  I'm willing to bet that the costs of a search & rescue by the coastguard is immense.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 2, 2009)

Well, another story on WCAX about this summer with some key points we have discussed.  

*The article.*

Some points:



> "Weather's a big factor this year, but poor decisions are also a big factor," explained Brian Linder with Waterbury Backcountry Rescue.





> "The most common mistake we see is people who go out on a beautiful day but get injured and because it's a beautiful day don't think they need extra clothing or extra food, flashlights, and by the time we get to them its after dark and they're cold and unprepared for the night."





> *Vermont is one of a handful of states where hikers can be billed for their rescue. Some rescue agencies do it, other's don't, fearing hikers will wait too long to call 911.*





> *"We'd like to think we don't have to. On the other hand there needs to be some mechanism to encourage more hikers to be prepared," *explained Hardy. "People should think twice because if they're gong to be billed the bills can be very significant. The one in New Hampshire recently was $25,000," added Linder.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 2, 2009)

The only problem with billing someone to be rescued is that nobody ever thinks they will need to be rescued.  Nobody ever walks into a situation thinking they are unprepared.  

Also, if a teen walks up a mountain wearing tennis shoes and brings no water then needs rescued, it is just as negligent as a backcountry skier that needs rescued because of a broken leg.   Each walked into a situation that ended in disaster and each walked into the situation thinking that they would be ok.  Just because one person appears to be prepared and trained means nothing.  Disaster is indescriminant and will take the prepared and unprepared just the same.  I'm willing to bet there are far fewer "prepared and trained" people going into the wilderness than people just out for a walk or a hike.  This would mean that the percent of prepared people that need to be rescued is actually higher than the percent of non-prepared people that need to be rescued, even though the number of unprepared people may be higher --  something to think about.

Also, a $25,000 bill is completely unpayable.  How does the state think they are going to collect this, especially from a teen?  - Or somebody that resides out of state or out of the country?


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 2, 2009)

snowmonster said:


> Wow! $25K! Best argument to stay at home and play wii.


Does this function as an actual deterrent? Is any one here not planning on hiking or enjoying the outdoors due to the potential cost of a rescue? Is any one changing their plans due to a potential rescue?

Of course not. Most people do not sit around hatching up dangerous plans thinking "I might need to be rescued." The extreme thrill seekers will do so regardless because that is the nature of the beast and they know going into the game that death is a likely outcome if they screw up.

On the flip side, will "Joe Six Pack" out doing a "bit off more than he could chew" first hike will not call for help sooner rather than later fearing a $25,000 price tag? That is a dangerous position to place the public. How long is it until someone turns up dead that could have been rescued if they had called had they not feared a $25,000 bill from the state.

How long is it until fire and police departments start charging for rescues?

There are two questions that make this sort of thing unfair. The definition of what is reckless behavior are not defined by the law. The other question is how much is too much and did the rescue really cost the state $25,000? Maybe they should drop the Helo from feature rescues if they don't have the money to do S&R from the air. If the person footing the bill isn't given the choice, I don't see how the fees can be justified. No one starts their day thinking they are doing something dumb that could get them killed, especially those people that I have seen needing rescue these last few years.

Should a person that is rescued help foot the bill? I certainly would if I were alive thanks to S&R. But I sure as heck couldn't afford $25,000 right now. How much is too much?


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 2, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> Also, if a teen walks up a mountain wearing tennis shoes and brings no water then needs rescued, [/B]



That is the kind of person that they are trying to deter.  



> ...it is just as negligent as a backcountry skier that needs rescued because of a broken leg.



Not necessarily.  In the latter, the person was prepared but as you said nobody can prevent such an injury.  The agencies seem to be focusing on if the person who was injured was in a situation in which he/she could not have avoided.  In the NH case involving the teen Eagle Scout in April, he simply said, "I'm an Eagle Scout, therefore, I can do this [intense] winter hike."  He had no idea what he was getting into.  From what I have read, his hubris really got the best of him.  As a result of that, he got stuck in a bad situation, one that could have been avoided, and needed a rescue.


----------



## billski (Aug 2, 2009)

This issue could move from the backburner to the front burner in VT
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10831749

*Hikers Being Rescued at Historic Levels*

"Weather's a big factor this year, but poor decisions are also a big factor," explained Brian Linder with Waterbury Backcountry Rescue.

Brian Linder says several of the five rescue operations on Camel's Hump this summer could have been prevented if hikers had been prepared.

Vermont is one of a handful of states where hikers can be billed for their rescue. Some rescue agencies do it, other's don't, fearing hikers will wait too long to call 911.

River asks, "Does this function as an actual deterrent?" - No, but if the PR keeps up it may encourage people to be better prepared.

I will admit that as the years have gone by, I have added more and more items to my pack. I never used to pack for emergencies. In my incident last month, several of the items in my pack were used for the first time in 20 years and my partners were very glad to find what they did in my pack.

I really wish that hikesafe.com pamphlet could tucked into every single piece of outdoor gear sold.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 2, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> As a result of that, he got stuck in a bad situation, one that could have been avoided, and needed a rescue.



This statement is true for any rescue situation.  

There are more unprepared and otherwise clueless people walking into the mountains and wilderness that just happen to walk out ok than people who are "prepared" - plain and simple.

Hubris among the prepared or unprepared could be the leading cause of accidents.  Either way, how can this be differentiated in a logical fashion?

It would make more sense to charge $25,000 across the board for any rescue (even though I think this to be absurd) -  Or stop engaging in such expensive rescue operations.  What happened to volunteers?


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 4, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> This statement is true for any rescue situation.
> 
> There are more unprepared and otherwise clueless people walking into the mountains and wilderness that just happen to walk out ok than people who are "prepared" - plain and simple.
> 
> ...



In making the determination as to who was reckless and who was not, and who should pay for the rescue (which uses limited volunteer resources), the State does not focus on the end result--i.e. if there was a rescue or not.  They focus on what happened at the trailhead to infer how reckless one was.  

The distinguishing factor is to focus on the intent of the party, and their appreciation of the risk they were taking.  

And an update as to *the MA teen fined $25k*.  They are trying to negotiate the fine.  

As we have discussed before, the NH Game Service stated:



> Fish and Game officials praised him for using his Eagle Scout skills to stay alive, but criticized him for being unprepared for treacherous spring conditions.



And why are they doing this?  Because they need to deter reckless hikers and outdoors enthusiasts from wasting limited rescue resources, including volunteers.  If you have the volunteers and the paid rescue personnel and equipment using helicopters to rescue a hiker who entered the woods unprepared, got lost, and called for help, you cannot rescue the prepared hiker who is traveling with a group, slips on a rock and fractures his skull and needs an immediate evac.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 4, 2009)

Nomatter what the fine, it could be a million dollars, the very last person who is going to head the warning and be "prepared" are the people that are flat out clueless.  The fine in effect does nothing.  Somewhere right now in the forests of Vermont there are some teens drinking beer and smoking weed on the way to the top of a mountain; maybe they all make it back safe or not, but I'm damn sure they aren't thinking about getting fined.  However, if they do need rescued, their situation is just as legitimate as a group of NOLS instructors getting zapped by lightning.

From what I understand, someone can wrap their car around a tree after drinking and not be fined as much.  $25K   -   crazy.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 5, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> From what I understand, someone can wrap their car around a tree after drinking and not be fined as much.  $25K   -   crazy.



It technically is not a "fine."  It was the cost of his search....which involved three days of volunteers and helicopter use.  The latter is what increased the cost.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 5, 2009)

I'm curious now about what made this boy's trip into the woods so grossly negligent.  What did he do wrong and how was this a contributing factor to his predicament?


----------



## madman (Aug 5, 2009)

I still dont get the problem with fees! If I need rescue come and get me, my life is worth 25K. That is only the price of a nice car. My life is worth more to me and my family then a car. Hopefully they have a payment plan because I cant come up with the cash but will be willing to work something out.


----------



## hammer (Aug 5, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> I'm curious now about what made this boy's trip into the woods so grossly negligent.  What did he do wrong and how was this a contributing factor to his predicament?


Are you saying that it's reasonable for a hiker with limited experience to try to tackle a mid-spring 17 mile hike in the Presidentials solo?


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 5, 2009)

hammer said:


> Are you saying that it's reasonable for a hiker with limited experience to try to tackle a mid-spring 17 mile hike in the Presidentials solo?



+ 1.  That is what happened in this case.  The guy said, "I am an Eagle Scout, I can handle anything, I want a challenge," and set out for the Presidential Traverse in MID APRIL.  That is a 17 mile hike over the highest peaks in the Whites, in pretty much winter conditions.  He was planning on doing this in a day.  That is not realistic given the conditions and snow depth.  That is just barely doable for most people in a summer day, with a very early start and good weather.  

He got going and got into trouble.  I don't recall if it was the flooding stream that he could not cross or getting stuck in snow too deep for him, but anyways he left the trail and tried to bushwhack.  His one day trip turned into three and at some point either him or his family called for help.  

He bit off way more than he could chew.  If you read the thread where we discussed this case, you will see that I am a bit harsh on him.  That's because I am an Eagle Scout and we were always taught, and told others, to be smart when hiking and being outdoors and not getting into trouble in the first place.  He should have turned back when it became quite obvious that he was over his head.  I think he really reflected poorly on the rest of us Scouts and Scouters.  He felt that his recent award gave him a sense of entitlement.  As you said, nature doesn't recognize any entitlement.  That's why you have to respect it and be conscientious of what you are getting yourself into.

The state is saying that his negligence is that he was not prepared for the hike to begin with.  

For some, the wilderness offers a challenge.  But with that challenge must come an appreciation of the risk, and preparedness for what could happen.  And when weather or conditions get too bad, that person needs to turn around rather than making things worse for him/herself.


----------



## billski (Aug 5, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> Nomatter what the fine, it could be a million dollars, the very last person who is going to head the warning and be "prepared" are the people that are flat out clueless. The fine in effect does nothing. Somewhere right now in the forests of Vermont there are some teens drinking beer and smoking weed on the way to the top of a mountain; maybe they all make it back safe or not, but I'm damn sure they aren't thinking about getting fined. However, if they do need rescued, their situation is just as legitimate as a group of NOLS instructors getting zapped by lightning.
> 
> From what I understand, someone can wrap their car around a tree after drinking and not be fined as much. $25K - crazy.


 
Discussions like these are precisely the behavior they were hoping to provoke with an onerous charge.  Talk to any SAR group and they will tell you that making people aware and prepared is their goal.  Any way to generate publicity and discussion will do.  

Can you catch everyone?  Of course not.  New fools are born every year.  But at least you can work to minimize it.

My prediction is that they fine "negotiation" will linger for some time, probably until NHF&G believes enough time has passed and enough publicity has been generated and then they will quietly settle it for a more reasonable amount.


----------



## billski (Aug 5, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> + 1. He bit off way more than he could chew. If you read the thread where we discussed this case, you will see that I am a bit harsh on him. That's because I am an Eagle Scout and we were always taught, and told others, to be smart when hiking and being outdoors and not getting into trouble in the first place. He should have turned back when it became quite obvious that he was over his head.


 
I agree 100%.  It reminds me of a hike I took in July in the western whites.  It was an ambitious circuit to begin with.  I got into it and found washouts, unmarked sections where I lost/found/lost/found the trail and burned a lot of time.  Later, I'm watching the clock and want to be certain I'm out before sunset and the skies open up and just pour.  At that point, I turned around and got back safe and sound.  I have never regretted any of the times I've turned around.  I think that is the hardest decision to make when you've got a big ego or too much confidence or are ill-prepared.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 5, 2009)

I still believe that charging $25K for a rescue (for any reason) is nuts.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 5, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> I still believe that charging $25K for a rescue (for any reason) is nuts.



Then what should they have done?  They have limited resources and volunteer SAR teams who have lives and real jobs.  The goal is to reduce unnecessary rescues.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 5, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Then what should they have done?  They have limited resources and volunteer SAR teams who have lives and real jobs.  The goal is to reduce unnecessary rescues.



Do you remember the old Smokey the Bear campaigns?  "Only you can prevent forest fires." (- And even Mr. Yuck.)   This was a very positive step in promoting more responsible behaviors around high risk areas for fire.  If the state does get any money from this boy, they should begin by starting up a similar campaign for wilderness preparedness.  Instead of being proactive with education, the state is hoping to benefit from some poor fool's mistake, but threats of fines do not help.  Which is more important, life or money?  There have been how many deaths in the mountainous areas because of unpreparedness or accidents and still with a long history of fatalities people are still wondering in the woods completely clueless.  The consequences mean nothing because nobody ever considers that "it" will happen to them.  However, if there is a sustained effort to educate the public and not just targeting the hiking population, there will be less incidents of stupidity.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 6, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Then what should they have done?  They have limited resources and volunteer SAR teams who have lives and real jobs.  The goal is to reduce unnecessary rescues.


Someone on T4T regarding this same discussion mentioned insurance. Whether it be a special outdoors insurance or if it gets wrapped into an existing insurance. Either way, I would be willing to pay like $50 a year or something like that for any S&R outdoors rescue. Sure as heck beats a virtually unpayable (by the average person) $25,000 fine. I guess they have this type of insurance in Europe.


----------



## billski (Aug 6, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Someone on T4T regarding this same discussion mentioned insurance. Whether it be a special outdoors insurance or if it gets wrapped into an existing insurance. Either way, I would be willing to pay like $50 a year or something like that for any S&R outdoors rescue. Sure as heck beats a virtually unpayable (by the average person) $25,000 fine. I guess they have this type of insurance in Europe.


Actually, I've been investigating insurance. While it's quite popular in europe (and practically mandatory because of the laws) nothing in the US to speak of.
Most of these policies are extremely narrow in range of coverage and payouts. As you say, better than nothing. American Alpine offers one that covers $5K. another interesting alternative for insurance is the SPOT (findmespot.com) offers GEOS insurance for $8 year with purchase of a SPOT device, coverage $25K/rescue, up to 2x per year. While spot is not as reliable a device as a beacon, you do get the insurance.  Spot requires a subscription too ($100/year), so the device upfront plus $108/year is your premium payment.

I'm leaning towards the PLB alone right now, no fees, just the upfront equipment purchase ($600). Still looking for better insurance options. Here is a business opportunity looking you in the face!


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 7, 2009)

I just pulled some statistics on Yosemite, using Nationa Parks data and YOSAR info, and in a quick BOTEC, looks like about 0.005% of visitors need to be rescued, at a cost of about $8 per visitor.

So, tack $8 to the useage fee paid to access the park, and fund SAR with that. I wouldn't have any problem paying that.
Not sure how that'd work out for free-access places, but this gives you some idea of the scale.

Other bits- average cost of a rescue in Yosemite from 1998 to 2007 is around $2,500 (only have solid cost data from 1998 to 2002 (average $434K/year)), though it seems like the cost/rescue has declined.


----------



## billski (Aug 7, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> I just pulled some statistics on Yosemite, using Nationa Parks data and YOSAR info, and in a quick BOTEC, looks like about 0.005% of visitors need to be rescued, at a cost of about $8 per visitor.
> 
> So, tack $8 to the useage fee paid to access the park, and fund SAR with that. I wouldn't have any problem paying that.
> Not sure how that'd work out for free-access places, but this gives you some idea of the scale.
> ...


 
I'll bet the drive-thus with grandma and baby would just love that fee!


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 7, 2009)

billski said:


> I'll bet the drive-thus with grandma and baby would just love that fee!



It already costs $20 to drive in, $10 to walk, bike or ride a horse.

Wilderness permits for overnight camping are free- could pop a charge on that. They have a quota system on all trailheads to limit the number of people on a trail in a day- could add a day hike fee to that. I'm not a fan of paying fees to use something I'm already paying taxes to support, but a $5 mandatory donation to local SAR groups wouldn't bother me so much. Plus, if you skipped the fee, somehow, then that could automatically make you liable for the full cost of your rescue. And, even at $10 a trip, that's cheaper than an insurance premium would be.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2009)

The White Mountains are not a park.  They are National Forest.  The only fees collected are nominal parking fees that have been collected since '97 to assist with trail maintenance.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 7, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> The White Mountains are not a park.  They are National Forest.  The only fees collected are nominal parking fees that have been collected since '97 to assist with trail maintenance.



That does make it more difficult, true.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2009)

Plus there are many agencies that are involved in these rescues....mainly local volunteer SAR groups...not some monolithic organization.  The NH Fish and Game coordinates them IIRC.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 7, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Plus there are many agencies that are involved in these rescues....mainly local volunteer SAR groups...not some monolithic organization.  The NH Fish and Game coordinates them IIRC.



I didn't say it'd be easy. But really, I'd much rather pay a per-use fee to help make sure there's SAR available than pay an insurance company to make money off of me not getting lost. Plus, the insurance company isn't helping support local SAR, so if someone who doesn't ahve insurance gets stuck, there's no help for them. I'd say it's much more likely that someone who is willing to buy the insurance is also much less likely to need it, since by definition they've thought ahead.


----------



## hammer (Aug 7, 2009)

How about a simple, well-advertised fine ($1000?) if you require rescue due to negligence?  Won't recoup the overall costs or a rescue, but it may help to prevent poor planning.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 7, 2009)

hammer said:


> How about a simple, well-advertised fine ($1000?) if you require rescue due to negligence?  Won't recoup the overall costs or a rescue, but it may help to prevent poor planning.



Define "negligence."

That's where the difficulty comes in.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Define "negligence."
> 
> That's where the difficulty comes in.



That's what this thread really boils down to.


----------



## hammer (Aug 7, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> I'd say it's much more likely that someone who is willing to buy the insurance is also much less likely to need it, since by definition they've thought ahead.


Therein lies the problem with insurance...

Maybe having an additional SAR fee (maybe variable based on the previous year's costs) would be the most reasonable way to go.  Of course, I'd look at it as effectively another tax increase, but I live in MA so I'm used to that...


----------



## catskills (Aug 7, 2009)

That's easy. I can answer that with two words.

NOT ME

Seriously,  the real question here is who is going to pay for the helicopter ride. 

Same as answer as above. NOT ME


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 7, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Plus there are many agencies that are involved in these rescues....mainly local volunteer SAR groups...not some monolithic organization.  The NH Fish and Game coordinates them IIRC.


While I appreciate the volunteer effort of the majority of SAR organizations and individuals, it begs the question that if so many SAR efforts are volunteer led, why the high price tag? Up keep of equipment yearly, perhaps one or two paid WMNF administrators or field persons, gas to and from the search location, etc. If they drop the helo, how much does a SAR _really_ cost. And I mean really cost... not taking extraneous non-specific search aspects out of the equation (i.e. the ranger is getting paid a salary regardless of the SAR so that shouldn't be factored into the equation, etc.). I don't think the fees being proposed are realistic and I think any discussion of "who pays" needs to involve realistic dollars otherwise it shouldn't be the person being rescued on the hook for 25 big ones.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 7, 2009)

hammer said:


> How about a simple, well-advertised fine ($1000?) if you require rescue due to negligence?  Won't recoup the overall costs or a rescue, but it may help to prevent poor planning.


Better yet, how about a $1000 fee for any SAR regardless of negligence. It will put more money into the system and eliminate the "define negligence" issue. Let's face it, I think most people wouldn't mind paying a small fee if someone helped them regardless of if they were negligent or not. If I broke my ankle and had to be carried out or had something like what Billski have happen, $1000 for the rescue effort seems reasonable for folks to come save my ass.

So the other question is are the "big" negligence cases funding all the SARs? Are the major negligence fines subsidizing the SAR system? Seriously, I still can't believe $25,000 for e negligence fine. That money can not all be going to one single SAR. Not literally dollar for dollar as I suggested in my last post.


----------



## Patroller (Aug 8, 2009)

When someone is negligent and forgets the pot on the stove and there is a fire, does that person get "charged" for the fire department responding and extinguishing the fire??? How about for car accidents and the fire department does extrication.  Ambulance billing is now common, but 25,000 is ridiculous. The real question is how to adequately fund SAR teams as this is a service that needs to be provided in wilderness areas just like fire and ems is provided in a city...


----------



## Geoff (Aug 9, 2009)

Patroller said:


> When someone is negligent and forgets the pot on the stove and there is a fire, does that person get "charged" for the fire department responding and extinguishing the fire??? How about for car accidents and the fire department does extrication.  Ambulance billing is now common, but 25,000 is ridiculous. The real question is how to adequately fund SAR teams as this is a service that needs to be provided in wilderness areas just like fire and ems is provided in a city...



$25K that includes a helicopter search isn't rediculous.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 9, 2009)

Geoff said:


> $25K that includes a helicopter search isn't rediculous.



+ 1.  Plus remember that the overall message is to deter people from being unprepared.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 9, 2009)

I don't think $25k is going to deter any one. I don't think $100k would deter any one. We all have to keep in mind that people being either "reckless" or "negligent" are not doing so intentionally. These are not people that wake up one morning and hatch up  a plan that they think is beyond their means or so difficult that if they screw up they could get killed. The people that do think like that are the thrill seekers that are going to do it any ways. Excessive fines are not deterrents for people that think they are not doing anything dangerous. There is a major perception problem that some people have regarding the outdoors when they have "just enough information to make themselves dangerous."


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 9, 2009)

When someone is rescued in their home by paramedics who pays for it?


----------



## ccskier (Aug 9, 2009)

Your health insurance usually covers ambulance, ect...


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 9, 2009)

ccskier said:


> Your health insurance usually covers ambulance, ect...



well then shouldn't people who visit the backcountry on a regular basis purchase search and rescue insurance..I know it exists..


----------



## billski (Aug 10, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I don't think $25k is going to deter any one. I don't think $100k would deter any one. We all have to keep in mind that people being either "reckless" or "negligent" are not doing so intentionally. These are not people that wake up one morning and hatch up a plan that they think is beyond their means or so difficult that if they screw up they could get killed. The people that do think like that are the thrill seekers that are going to do it any ways. Excessive fines are not deterrents for people that think they are not doing anything dangerous. There is a major perception problem that some people have regarding the outdoors when they have "just enough information to make themselves dangerous."


 
Tru dat. Then again most people don't believe they will ever be faced with needing to call for rescue. The recent fine draws attention to the issue, which is really the objective of the fine. It will be quietly reduced or elliminated IMHO. I felt that way, even though I was prepared. I always figured I could self-rescue. Ostrich-thinking in hindsight.

If they began issuing a boatload of 25K fines, you can be certain there would be a class action lawsuit and it would be thrown out. They're not stupid, I'm sure they know that.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 10, 2009)

billski said:


> If they began issuing a boatload of 25K fines, you can be certain there would be a class action lawsuit and it would be thrown out. They're not stupid, I'm sure they know that.



A class action suit against the state of New Hampshire?  That would have zero luck of going anywhere.  You can't have a class action suit for individual cases of negligence.


----------



## Connecticut (Aug 13, 2009)

Live Free or Die...


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 14, 2009)

Connecticut said:


> Live Free or Die...



reminds me of New Hampshire..


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 14, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> reminds me of New Hampshire..



Way to go....


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 18, 2009)

As cited in another thread, a hiker who injured his thumb *requested a helicopter rescue.* :blink:  Cases like these indicate why NH is charging people for such wilderness rescues.  And the comments from rescuers confirm that resources are thin:  



> "I let them know that our resources are spread pretty thin and that an injured thumb does not preclude him from self-rescue," Holmes said last night.





> "It's just prior to 7 p.m.," Holmes said. "Who knows what else we may get tonight?" and he did not want to risk spreading thin volunteer groups who are vital in mountain rescues.
> 
> Over the years, hikers have called for emergency service, including to help carry a dog off Mount Jefferson, to two men years ago requesting a helicopter rescue on Mount Washington in 125 mph winds, as they were hunkered under Cog Railway tracks. Last year, a woman requested a rescue when she could not find her shoes.


----------



## billski (Aug 18, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> As cited in another thread, a hiker who injured his thumb *requested a helicopter rescue.* :blink: Cases like these indicate why NH is charging people for such wilderness rescues. And the comments from rescuers confirm that resources are thin:


 
Touche'.  The real risk here is that the SAR teams are off tending to a thumb and can't quickly get to a life-threatening injury, where time to rescue is crucial.  So someone may die while they tend to a thumb.  Matt made the right call.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 18, 2009)

Billski also posted this in another thread...which also explains why NH does charge for rescues now:



> "On March 12, 1992, an 18-year-old Connecticut man and a friend commenced an ascent of the Tuckerman Ravine headwall area. One fell, slid and was unable to continue the ascent. He returned to Pinkham, reporting the incident at 4:00p.m. The other man continued on. Both were dressed in jeans and sneakers, with no hiking gear or experience. Summit temperatures were below zero, wind speeds eighty-five miles per hour with gusts to ninety-five and visibility intermittently 200 feet.
> 
> A massive search was started, involving five organizations, eighteen searchers and a thiokol. The subject crossed the Alpine Garden to the auto road, descended to the Glen House in the dark, and secured a ride to Pinkham, arriving at 8:40p.m.
> 
> ...


----------



## billski (Aug 18, 2009)

I think it's fair to say that if you do something stupid which requires a rescue AND someone from the SAR team gets seriously injuried/dies, or another potential rescue victim dies because they were tending to you.... , you open yourself up to a huge culpability or liability.  I'm no lawyer, but that's how I'm reading things.


----------



## billski (Sep 5, 2009)

Interesting data from NH.  Clearly we have a broken SAR funding process with no easy fix.  And as Steve says, a fine isn't a deterrent.  Many (unusually) thoughtful reader comments.  I kind of like the notion that hunters and fishermen deserve rescue because their permits have an embedded fee.  Interesting also is that the average SAR cost to the state is $3000.  Does not include the true cost of volunteer SAR groups, who make up the majority of the effort.

I also agree that cell phones have dramatically changed the SAR paradigm for good and bad.  Time to consider a new model.


----------



## Connecticut (Sep 5, 2009)

The Trailboss's example from a post from Billski in #72 above is a great example of my point that there are more clueless untrained and negligent people surviving dangerous wilderness encounters than the trained and prepared.  This is because the untrained go into the wilderness in much greater numbers.  

Even though the cost of such ridiculous rescue attempts can be high and result in nothing but frustration, such is life.  

I agree with Billski's realization that the model needs to change.  First off, the best way to lower the cost of a rescue is to not have a rescue at all.  This means the funding going into education needs to be ramped up.  The next step should be to cut down the time of actually finding the victim.  The search is the most costly part.  Sometimes it takes hundreds of people days to locate somebody.  There needs to be more accurate ways to determine location.  The coastguard uses a variety of high-tech sensors to locate people at sea.  This may be a transferable method to mountain rescues.  Also, the arrival of the SPOT Rescue device is a hopeful candidate to decrease search times.  

I am a firm believer that unless the model for search and rescue changes, the wild-goose-chase scenarios will continue.


----------



## Connecticut (Nov 19, 2009)

FYI- 

   Laurence Gonzales wrote a Deep Survival article for the Dec 2009 issue of National Geographic Adventure about this exact subject.  He is a survival expert and blasts the very idea of charging for a rescue with a host of other S&R professionals.


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 20, 2009)

Interesting article, but misses an important point- where should funding come from? If teh state budget gets slashed, how does the difference get made up? 

I like his point about the military choppers- they would be flying, anyway, and there's no better training than reality.


----------



## billski (Nov 20, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Interesting article, but misses an important point- where should funding come from? If teh state budget gets slashed, how does the difference get made up?
> 
> I like his point about the military choppers- they would be flying, anyway, and there's no better training than reality.



Lots of hikers support paying a fee.  Hunters and Fishermen/women already do with licenses, which fund state SAR costs.   Have an analogous annual hiker license.  Got license?  Get out of jail free, get rescued.   Problem is it is often the ill-equipped that get hurt.  I'd still pay for a license, especially after what I went through - once in 44 years the odds might catch up with even the most experienced..


----------



## Trekchick (Nov 21, 2009)

I just watched the movie put out by the Jackson Hole Air Force - Swift Silent Deep.
This brings a whole new element to back country responsibility.
If there is a movie that ranks high in my ski porn reviews along with Edge of Never, its this one.....


----------



## Connecticut (Nov 24, 2009)

ctenidae said:


> Interesting article, but misses an important point- where should funding come from? If teh state budget gets slashed, how does the difference get made up?
> 
> I like his point about the military choppers- they would be flying, anyway, and there's no better training than reality.



At least 45 other states already have this figured out.  Don't reinvent the wheel, find out how the others are doing it.  Isn't NH's motto "Live Free or Die?"  Maybe they should change it to "Live as Long as You are Insured."


----------

