Should people be charged for search and rescue?
Let me pose a scenario to you.
A young man gets lost in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. The weather is bad and his situation is dire. Search and rescue personnel look for him and eventually find him. He’s taken to a hospital for treatment. He’s also given a $25,000 bill for the rescue.
This was a controversial case, to say the least. Many people can identify with the state in terms of holding people financially accountable for search and rescue efforts. This has become a bigger issue with the advent of rescue beacons that some people overuse when they wander off into the wilderness, get uncomfortable with their surrounds and decide they’re too tired to deal with it anymore. People who are that reckless – putting rescuers at risk unnecessarily – should be fined, the thinking goes.
But there is also another side to the argument. Many search and rescue groups adamantly oppose instituting fines and fees for search and rescue. They say if people are afraid of racking up a huge tab for their rescue, they’ll be less apt to call for help when they really need it, thus leading to desperate or even deadly situations that could be avoided.
Outside Online’s blog discusses this subject, citing a case where a Colorado search and rescue group convinced one city there to abandon its policy of charging for search and rescue. You can read about it here: http://outside-blog.away.com/blog/2010/09/no-charge-to-rescue-heats-up.html
But what about the Grand Canyon case where one group used a SPOT locator beacon three times, ultimately waving off a helicopter rescue crew three times after asking for help on rather mundane inconveniences? The rescuers in that case ultimately forced the group out of the canyon. Should they have been charged?
So what do you think? I’m likely to side with the rescue groups who stand against such fees, but I can understand where some would like to see the more careless or reckless types pay for their sins. Give me your opinion.
Bob Doucette
Thank you for joining our conversation on Out There. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Yeah, $25,000 seems like a lot. My guess is they’re taking into account such thngs as man hours, fuel, etc. But 25 grand seems like a lot. As far as “crying wolf,” many cities and states do fine people for instances like that. Can’t give you a specific example, but it happens.
First, this case is much more complicated. As I recall it is at least debatable that this individual was “rescued,” he walked out with an ankle injury and was not actually the person that called for help. (Even if HE did not walk out, others have and the public reaction was to charge the person)
In this case for sure, many outdoor experts praised this individuals survival skills, thus negating most any issues of “stupidity.”
As for the $25,000, this case involved two helicopters, which are very expensive to operate. Even still, costs in this case were inflated because helicopters came from further away than normal.
To lessen the taxpayer costs even more, most of the time helicopters are called, military helicopters are used. The military uses the real life missions for training. This means that you, as a tax payer, can either pay for a helicpopter to fly in circles for (say) 4 hours, or you can pay for 4 hours of flight time to potentially save a life. (Although I don’t know in this case where the helicopters came from)
Lastly, all states and the federaly government have statues for “crying wolf.” It’s called false reporting or lying to an officer. Martha Stewart famously went to jail for a year for it. The problem lies with the fact that what I call an emergency is not necessarily what you call an emergency.
If you get a hundred searchers and a helicopter or two involved, along with police, logistics, etc for a multi-day search, you can easiily run up many times that amount, even before missed wages of volunteers and injuries are factored in. If someone is facing this kind of bill, they will put off calling for help much longer, making their rescue much harder and / or less likely. Cost reimbursement should be persued only in cases of extreme carelessness or recklessness. The case of false alarm from the locator beacon should be treated the same as a false fire call, scaled to reflect the cost of response by helicopter (some FDs “forgive” one false alarm).
I think that people should be fairly charged for their stupidity.. Though there are accidents and that’s exactly what they are, accidents. Though there are unprepared people, and poor choices that lead people to get in these pickles. Though I think that even the seasoned hiker has made poor choices and went out on a hike ill prepared, he just got lucky that day. So I guess it depends on how the dice roll.
I tnink the problem with just charging people that were “reckless” and/or negligent or just plain stupid, how do you decide that? I think it would be a really thin line to draw in a case like that. And the idea of the rescuee or victim having insurance I guess is a good idea, but what if they are charged for a rescue? Who do you think ultimately pays that final cost to the insurance company? The other policy holders as well. i.e. Taxpayers.
Maybe in the end, the best thing to do, is to have a kiosk in the park, or entrance to where ever, that makes you rent out a satilite. phone, search beacon etc… and charge a reasonable fee to all persons entering. And then the fees collected go into the SAR fund.
Think about it… you people out there that are saying that the rescued should have to pay for SAR, what if you were that person? I bet your outlook would be alot different.
I’d like to see an itemized statement that would justify a $25,000 charge. It seems like the hospital charging $8 for a single aspirin.
People should be penalized for “crying wolf” or calling for help for non-emergency situations.