Cost to be Rescued

[MrS]

I’ll bring up an issue I see, but maybe others can correct me on this if it's not an issue.

Is there a charge for a rescue? Is this a realistic cost for tax payers to support backcountry travelers?

I’m thinking if a person was to stop carrying or not buying to begin with the entire vehicle repair gear, which would lighten a truck 100s of lbs, and help increase MPG. Just the cost of a winch and needed winch gear would cover the cost of that ‘Spot’ device for 10+ years. The other locator beacons and Satellite phones could have more or less savings depending on need.

I know (from internet searching) some states have a $500 charge “when "reasonable care" was not used and when "applicable laws were violated." during a rescue. But a rescue can exceed $500 very fast, and this would hurt already reduced budgets of land management agencies.

I know the rig-a-ma-roll about responsible exploring, but when I think of all the good work that gets un-done by one un-responsible person and is used against everyone by controlist waving the ‘environmental banner’ I shudder.

I see this as a potential backcountry issue for people who care about the environment to unite with people who pay taxes for a common cause.

Anyone think this might be a upcoming future issue. I hope I’m wrong but I can see this becoming one more point to close areas/roads to access.

I know there are many ‘real, right-now’ land issues to deal with. But as a group we can sometimes be reactive vs active to land issues. I bring this up as get an active approach to a possible issue.


Later guys and have a good weekend.

[crawler#976]

Interesting topic Steve!

I googled search and rescue insurance, and came up with a lot of reading. I remembered reading about the fund in Colorado some years ago, and that seems like a fair way to access a tax from the people most likely to need SAR.

http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/sar/index.html

As an old Coasty, I have some experience with a scenario similar to what you described. On several occasions we were called out for rescues where the party had run out of fuel. I remember in two cases they were commercial fishermen - they fished until they ran out of fuel then had the good ol' USCG come tow them into port. While we were not allowed to charge for the service, we would take them back into port and give them a very, very detailed safety inspection, and write up every violation we found. It ended up being a very expensive "free" tow...

[alanh]

I don't remember hearing anything specific about the average backroad traveler paying for rescues.

I haven't paid that much attention recently but when I was climbing in the mountains, there were debates whether people deliberately doing "risky" things like climbing should pay a fee or buy insurance.

I don't think that has been resolved any more than user fees for hiking trails or camping. Everyone has a different idea of what is unreasonable risk where you should plan to take care of yourself or pay if you need to be rescued from your own bad judgment, and what is something that should be tax supported because it may happen to anyone.

As far as cost goes, some people disputed the cost figures typically quoted by saying things like "those people were on the payrole anyway" or figuring that a military helicopter rescue could be counted as training time or flight hours they would have spent anyway. I don't know how you account for the time that vounteers spend looking for someone or carrying them out if necessary when a vehicle or helicopter can't do it. Or the added personal risk to the people who have to rescue someone from a dangerous spot.

There were debates at the time whether climbers were getting careless because it was becoming too easy to get a rescue by using a cell phone.
Some suggested that some of the recent rescues were caused by climbers who went past a safe limit because they planned on a quick helicopter rescue if things went wrong, or were simply lazy climbers who could have gotten themselves out without help.

In any case, I can't imagine that a government agency would take much responsibility for getting a vehicle unstuck unless it was pretty easy and they happened to be there or it was something simple like a jump start or a bit of gas that didn't cost much and would get some good PR or avoid bad PR (headlines like "BLM leaves family stranded without gas..."). I always figured once they got people back to safety, if needed, they'd not do anything more unless there was some environmental issue like spilled gas or oil in a stream - and then they'd probably fine you or charge you some way.

[HenryJ]

Due to budget issues, recently more departments have started charging for services to persons outside the taxing district.
Currently this is only being done for service rendered within the fire district. Primarily for medical care and fire suppression. I can easily see this being expanded to other forms of rescue as well though.

The problem is the demand has increased , costs have increased and the financial support has not.

Typically insurance companies are billed. Health insurance for the medical, and auto insurance for the fire suppression. In a case where the auto was disabled and the occupants were in need of rescue, I could easily see the costs being billed to the auto insurance.

For our county the volunteer support is still good. There are many SAR members that do not get paid, or expect to be. I do not think you really need to worry about the cost of rescue, right now. Making a donation to your local rescue service would be a great idea though. Maybe join or volunteer. That would be an even bigger help.

[Spike Pretorius]

Here in South Africa they charge people if they've been blatantly negligent, like having been warned before hand etc. Well that's the blurb in the papers anyway. When they pursue it to the end or not I've got no idea.

[MrS]

.....Or the added personal risk to the people who have to rescue someone from a dangerous spot....

Good point. Not only is the cost of injured people, there is equipment loss.

I recall a few years back an air force helicopter had a major failure. The video was on the news and I think it was a climber rescue on Mt Hood?? I don’t know the circumstance or out come of the overall rescue, but that must have been at least a $20 million dollar loss, and lucky none of the helo crew died. That may be part of the stranded/rescue vs cost issue, the News will report costly failures, mishaps, and deaths long before the public hears about all the smooth no-problem rescues.

GREAT input guys. :ok-kewl:

Thanks for that Colo. Link. On the surface I like that ‘rescue permit program’ as I understand it.

[David A. Wright]

Maybe apples to oranges, but I think still applicable.

Up here near Winnemucca, Nevada, a Reno man became lost on Pitt Taylor Reservoir, located between Winnemucca and Lovelock. He was an avid outdoorsman and former Winnemucca resident for many years. He was a regular visitor to the reservoir.

A two week long search and rescue/recovery effort took place, involving many agencies and outside agencies with plenty of high tech equipment. His body finally floated to the surface when the water warmed enough that the cold water couldn't keep his body down any longer.

One of the outside agencies, who used a lot of high tech equipment to locate the body, is submitting a bill for the recovery effort to his widow. Of course, it has spurred public outrage.

The paper reported that the local agencies are not in the habit of charging for their operations, as "that's part of what your tax dollars fund anyway."

And I think that's the way it should be. But times are changing.

In my observation, and no way scientific or based upon research, I would think the less life-threatening your situation is, the more likely you would be charged.

[TimB]

I used to be on the Grand County Sherriffs Dept Search and Rescue team in Moab Utah. I used my personal vehicle to rescue probably 100+ people in a few years time - most of them mountain bikers that got lost. The county would re-imburse me for fuel but nothing else, and they never charged for the service. I understand now that they pay SAR team members to attend meetings like volunteer firemen get paid, and they charge for rescues if you are not a Grand or San Juan co resident.

That's a good thing IMO. My equipment took a beating, and most of the time to rescue someone who made little effort to help themselves - and usually did not bother to say "thanks". I even had one female mountain biker twist my heater fan knob off, and complain all the way to town that my top had a hole in it or something. It was a new top - she was just chilled and could not get warm - I was roasting in more than one way by the time I dropped her off.

People need to plan ahead and do a little research before setting out into remote country. If they don't - they deserve to pay. Accidents happen and usually your insurance will cover that (some homeowners insurance policies actually cover a rescue) - but when you are just unprepared and irresponsible I think it should cost you something.

[JackSilb]

How would an insurance fund help in this case?
Lets say that the agencies that provide rescue services enroll / pay for the insurance. Then when needed it can be used to pay the bills.

Also, the cost could be offset by "back-coutnry" insurance. You are not obligate to have it, but if you need to be rescue it comes handy to pay the cost. Not much different than your regular AAA membership. I guess nobody give you a tow truck free.

-JACK

[offroad_nomad]

As a volunteer for a wilderness SAR team, we don't charge for search and rescue missions; nor does our conference. We've had search subjects purposely avoid our ground search teams due to fear of being billed if found. This has been thrown around many times in the SAR community, with pros/cons and some heated debate.

[MountainBiker]

Just a few weeks ago I was mountain biking with a rider that had to be airlifted due to extreme back pain/potential spinal fracture (bone broke, but spinal column was fine, whew!)

My cell phone 911 call got routed to the county sheriff as is usually done for cell 911 calls, at least in CA. This County Sheriff dept. has a SAR helicopter crew, so there was no charge for the flight. Had it been a REACH 'copter, the charge would've been huge from what I understand.

BTW, the SAR crew is paid up full time, even if there are no emergency calls.