Cost of Rescue

[ck1]

Had a discussion on this with a few people, wanted to get a wider perspective...should individuals have to pay the expense of being rescued in the wilderness, or should our tax dollars cover the costs associated with a back country extraction?
_________________
-Colin

"The Journey is the Destination"

[CatValet]

Hey Colin:

I say both. This also applies to similar things, like people who cross flooded streets during monsoon storms. If you are doing something clearly irresponsible, like driving around barriers in a floodplain, or rappelling with dental floss, it's your bad and you pay. If it's a normal wear-and-tear EMT call, cause your heart bursts trying to keep up with Cap'n Heat on a long hike, then let the typical emergency services funding cover it. I think this is along the lines of the NPS policies where you pay if you are doing something prohibited, or stupid.

I guess there will always be some aergument about what is clearly "stupid". Maybe Jeff Foxworthy can be the arbitor....

[Andy]

CatValet Is right on the money on this question! Except the Jeff Foxworthy thing!
_________________

http://community.webshots.com/album/136917818udlQWZ

[Davis2001R6]

Well said CatValet! Thats exactly how I feel, heck i vote to let Jeff Foxworthy decide also. Some things should just take common sense.
-TIM-

[HUM469]

I agree here too. I have always said certain things are just plain stupid. Like the people who go out hiking with no water on a 100 degree day. I know I am thirsty the moment I walk out the door, why the hell would you go any further? Or drunk guys falling off the mountain? "Look, I can't walk straight, perhapse it is time to try that trail up Squaw Peak now." And yes, this really has happened, twice, in one year! I grew up on the foot of that mountain, and twice in one year I did sit around and watch them bring the helicopter in and everything to rescue two different guys who fell off the trail because they were very well past the old legal limit. One EMT on the first rescue told me one of the guys was more than double (so how he made it near the top before the fall is amazing).

My point is that there certainly are some things that we all can agree are very stupid, and I as a tax payer am not ok with paying for these people and their complete lack of intelligence. I even would not have wanted the tax payers to pay for my rescue when I fell free climbing. They didn't either, I effected a self rescue, and got myself to the doctor where he put my back back together. But when anyone of us suffers a freak accident (ledge collapse, stranding by storm, bear attack, whatever) then I have no problem paying for a rescue. Just my $0.02 anyway.
_________________
-Dylan Anderson
(602) 628-4327
Consultant
Real Estate Executive to AZ
Special Projects Manager, AZCDE.com

[Tom Treks]

When it comes to 'most' wilderness rescues, the Darwin Awards comes to mind... let those individuals pay the tab I say.

[evenstar]

I'm with Randy and Tom on this.
_________________
John Richardson and Richie Rich, El Perro de Playero
http://members.tripod.com/~evenstar/index.html
http://www.arizonahikers.com
When the Man waked up he said, "What is Wild Dog doing here?" And the Woman said, "His name is not Wild Dog anymore, but the First Friend, because he will be our friend for always and always and always. Take him with you when you go hunting."
--Rudyard Kipling, from Just So Stories, 1902

[Tom Treks]

[ghoster]

The dummies that get into trouble have to be made to think twice before the next time. SInce I probably wouldn't be able to afford a rescue, my vote is that tax dollars might be used to cover the cost. But the dummie fine should be for obviously stupid stuff, like going without water, or hiking at night without lights or supplies. There is a disclaimer on this very site that states that hiking is a dangerous pursuit, and use caution. Personal safety is just that, personal. ONe thing to remember is that pilots sometime to follow the rule, that a 180 is the best manuever for weather conditions that are marginal. That would seem to hold true for hiking, planning and preparation. THe question I have is what about the new personal locator beacons? Do they have to be paid for by the user, the rescues that is. I am thinking of getting one, because I hike alone a lot. Between bears, and falls, I might not get cell phone signal, and wouldn't want to be coyote bait.

[Hikngrl]

I would like to see it covered by an individuals health insurance.... kinda like an ambulance ride... Is this rediculous?

I see your point Randy and yes many of the rescues are because of stupidity. However, I am married to an individual who has narrowly escaped having to be rescued twice now despite the fact that he thought he was coming prepared for his hike and carried enough water and food for the average person. Through these two expereinces he has learned a valuable lesson. He has learned that his body does not react to heat situations the way the average persons body does. He now knows he has to carry much more water than the rest of us do and he has to carry and eat more food than he has in the past to keep from being depleted. All that said to make the point that it is not always stupidity as much as...inexperience that causes problems.
_________________
~~~Diane~~~

I want to shine!

[Davis2001R6]

[Arizonaheat]

I agree with Randy, depends on the situation.

What they do in my home state, Colorado, is this:

If you buy a fishing license, small game license, etc., that acts as an insurance policy if something goes awry, even out of stupidity. Otherwise you may be charged depending on circumstances.

If you are against hunting or fishing, consider your license fee an insurance premium you are covered. You don't have to hunt.
_________________
Our lives are not determined by what happens to us but by how we react to what happens, not by what life brings to us, but by the attitude we bring to life.

[Tom Treks]

[Hikngrl]

Thats a way cool idea Heat. So what you are saying is if you buy a license for the year you are then essentially buying insurance for a year and you are covered if any thing were to happen....That way your personal insurance is not brought into play but you are still covered. I like it and would be willing to do that in a flash!
_________________
~~~Diane~~~

I want to shine!

[thesuperstitions]

I would guess that such a system would drive up the cost of the license substantially. Unfortunately, when government gets it's foot in the door with a new revenue stream, it isn't long before they start re-directing the funds to other uses and, when their empire needs more cash, they tap you on the back and say "Ante up"! Eventually, it just becomes another tax. (Or am I just being synical? )