Epinephrine Rescue

Dow Williams wrote: perfect finish.....damn

+1

s.price wrote: If people knew they were gonna be hit in the pocketbook most would make an effort to extract themselves from the situation they put themselves in. If your talented enough to get yourself into trouble you should be talented enough to get yourself out.

This is just not true. What occurs is that people make the situation more of a problem, possibly exacerbate an injury for themselves or their partner, by not calling it in.

The whole charge thing works in a different part of the world for two reasons, there's an economic base & a general population that supports the activity so you can insure, and there isn't a litigious process. In this country, there is a heavy amount of liability and a overwhelming opinion that anyone out in terrain/backcountry is a problem, regardless of experience, talent, or education. Thereby, charge for rescue will open up liability, the result to you will be a loss of access. Saying a climber isn't "good enough" won't solve anything.

Talent of the climbing team only goes so far in the case of an injury, or some decision made that sanfued the team. "Real climbers" are just as apt to be the rescuee as anyone else. Like I said before, shit happens. So what do we do, let a climbing team hang and die on the wall?

I'm a big proponent of self & buddy rescue tactics and education, but there are limitations to what a climbing team can do versus what an organized rescue can do to get someone off the wall and out of the backcountry.

If you don't need rescue, fine, nobody should have a problem with resolving your own problem. Hitting a PLB when you don't really need help is one of the biggest problems in SAR; pisses everyone off. But, if you need help, why shouldn't the professional response be assertive to get to the person in need, get them stabilized, and transported out?

Keep in mind, nobody really knows the extent of a medical condition when a climber is on the wall and requesting aid. Simply looking at a rescue after the fact isn't good enough to say a certain type of response was or wasn't necessary. I've dealt with many calls where the information was downplayed only to find a person was actually in a life threatening situation.

Buff, I agree with some of the things your saying.

I don't think there could possibly be any criteria defined on whether or not you're going out to rescue climbers/hikers. It's just frustrating that many problems that arise by the rescued could have certainly been avoided.

And for those certain people... there should be some serious public education. Chopper has a few words to say. Dow, i'm sure you'll enjoy this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

good timing Rob...I just posted this on SP in a similar thread I got going over there...when all else fails, HTFU..uncle Chopper is the man

My suggestion: stop worrying about other people and their situation(s). You simply cannot know the full set of details of any situation. What looks benign to you, standing on the sidelines, may be something far more serious. Seriously, when a rock slides and breaks a guy's ankle, is it "his fault"? Tough cookies to him?

I realize that is how many with their head in the sand approach figure democracy works.....reality is a discussion needs to be had as to who is responsible for the poor bastard's ankle. I say he is. Society needs to start saying he is and quit worrying about being politically correct. We need to start setting priorities and admitting there is not perfect nirvana where everyone gets tapped into such luxurious resources such as a helicopter rescue for example. We need to all start facing reality when it comes to how we budget and distribute our limited resources, search and rescue, police, medical, fire, education, etc.

Harden the fuck up folks, yes it is "tough cookies" to him or I. We put ourselves in that situation. I just made the second ascent of 1500' of 5.10d on the worst fucking rock this planet has. I am an idiot by most city dweller perspectives and can't say I blame them. My partner and I both considered part of this climb Russian roulette, particularly rapping the damn thing. If I die and the citizens can collect from my estate to clean up the mess I caused by venturing onto this piece of shit face, then they damn well should. If a piece of rock gets dislodged on rap and breaks my ankle and my partner and I are too big of pussies to get me down and out (maybe I don't like the pain or maybe I went up ill prepared withput prescrip pain meds in case I broke a bone) , then yes, we can pay for a rescue, sure, why not. But the expense sure as hell should not be borne by the citizens of Alberta. If in the National Park, then I already paid for it, that part makes sense. I believe all national parks should budget reimb SARS cost into the park admission fees. I believe all local governments who operate SARS should seek reimb from each and every recovery in the wilderness, no matter the circumstances.

Punish the wounded. You'd do well in insurance and medical bill collecting.

While I have shaken my head at totally gumby mistakes. It seems a bit premature to pass such harsh judgement on these guys. Not knowing the total story. Also different people have different thresholds for risk and different levels of experience to deal with things. As for all the talk of useless risk of the rescuers? Being somewhat familiar with helicopter rescues (as one of the people in the helicopter) though by no means an expert. I have to mention that I and most people I know love picking people up! It's really fun. That is why we get into it, fully aware of the risk. Just like climbing. But in rescue you get to help someone too. How cool is that? As for the cost? You burn most gas training for the real thing. Better to do it for real.

The previous post I tried seemed to derail things more than to offer a point of view in discussion. Nobody really has a perfect solution that will work for everyone. You can't fix stupid and you can't get everyone on the same page when it comes to rescue.

Survival of the fittest... We just give handouts to everybody these days! Watch, i'm going to be calling Vegas SAR on my next outing, i'm jixned for lifeeeeee.

Dow Williams wrote: If I die and the citizens can collect from my estate to clean up the mess I caused by venturing onto this piece of shit face, then they damn well should.

I got dibbs on the climbing gear.

alexdavis wrote: And that's why there's a fee for delivery! lol.

Sort of walked into that. Bit surprised this topic went so far into the economics of SAR. My point was while the SAR job is dangerous, the SAR team should be able to recognize the risks and urgency in the situation. I've called for a rescue once that needed a helicopter, which was decided by the SAR team based on what we described the situation as, and they determined it was too dangerous to send a helicopter. It is up to them how they choose to respond.

One should not be surprised that the economics of this or any other issue is a hot one right now...I believe if I am reading the news correctly, that the economics of our entire lifestyle is being called into question.

I sit here and ponder...when are we going to start prioritizing our resources??? Saving folks who get themselves in trouble or put them selves in harms way to begin with, no matter the circumstances, needs to be way down the list. This coming from someone who spends his entire life in the outdoors climbing, skiing and paddling. I have made mistakes, should be dead maybe, call it luck, I do. I am just saying I don't necessarily deserve a rescue and if a particular community, Clark County, whoever, felt the need to do so...I should have to reimburse same. Why in hell should the folks of Vegas have to subsidize my outdoor activities? I don't get it. This is not about punishing the stupid or careless (although a dose of prevention would be nice---no guaranteed rescues=less folks not prepared to save themselves taking chances). This is about what is economically fair across the spectrum of society.

I don't necessarily think the taxpayer would be subsidizing additionally to the activity.

Volunteers are free, the SAR equipment is donation & grant, advanced medical care is a pass-through, the sheriff and their assets are already under an approved budget, and so are military assets -- meaning whether they are used for training & SAR, law enforcement/mission, or stored in the garage, the money is already approved. If not used, the agency loses the money anyway. In other words, these resources are already prioritized.

If you want to chuck your life off the cliff, then by all means, knock yourself out. That isn't really true to the climbing ethic of respecting life, that's just being an ass. So I don't think we're just going to let someone to their own devices when they ask for help.

As a societal view, the humanitarian aid will be addressed in such a manner that does not charge the individual. This country does not endorse charging for aid as that becomes counter to the purpose for which public service is mandated, to provide assistance to those in need.

I disagree with the standpoint of guaranteed rescue, there already is no such guarantee in this country. Charging the individual would then create that and make it a liability. Is it more that the team is successfully pulling off every rescue? I'm sure they'll be the first to apologize for that.

Charging would also not solve the underlying problem, a disconnect with education. You will then have no regard for education & safety and those so flush in cash will simply get themselves into any situation without gauging acceptable risk and cut a check. It's no problem for them to do that. Or, those without monies, will delay the rescue & evade prosecution. Good climbers are now criminals because they needed help.

Maybe you can say, no problem, we'll just get some friends together and do it ourselves. Someone might end up getting killed because of the loss of situational awareness, the person you try to save doesn't have a positive outcome -- you'd be held liable by the family and law enforcement for not calling it in, or nothing bad happens and you make the save. That's just one call. Can you do a hundred of those in a year? Does everyone now look to you to save them? Can you maintain a safety record to your friends assisting in every rescue? It's not an easy situation.

Overall, I think the actual burden to the taxpayer is being overstated when it comes to seeing a climber rescue.

Dow Williams wrote:I am just saying I don't necessarily deserve a rescue and if a particular community, Clark County, whoever, felt the need to do so...[...]This is about what is economically fair across the spectrum of society.

Well, if you feel so strongly, get DNR (for "Do Not Rescue" or "Do Not Rescuscitate") tattooed on your forehead. You can play Mr. Charles Rambo Norris all day long without fear of outside help.

It's also great you personally feel such responsibility for the economic situation, but, as others mention, basic medical care for traumatic and/or life threatening sitatuations should rightly trump perceived economic concerns. I mean, how do you determine in a life and death situation what is fair "across the spectrum of society"? Should that be a prime triage concern, and, anyway, is the way our economic system is structured fair across the board in the first place? At least SAR is potentially saving a life, much better to my mind than what our economic system generally promotes.

Largely, I believe the formulation of these issues is part of the blame the victim mentality, an easy trap to fall into when others show weakness or poor thought. Also, those looking out for the bottom line for communities with a large SAR need may forget all the dollars that washed in from those who did not utilize those resources....

Buff Johnson wrote: Volunteers are free, the SAR equipment is donation & grant, advanced medical care is a pass-through, the sheriff and their assets are already under an approved budget, and so are military assets -- meaning whether they are used for training & SAR, law enforcement/mission, or stored in the garage, the money is already approved. If not used, the agency loses the money anyway. In other words, these resources are already prioritized.

I don't believe any of that is true. Volunteers may be unpaid but they are not free. SAR volunteers expect to spend as much as several thousand dollars a year on equipment, supplies, fuel etc. Initial training and ongoing training operations are incredibly expensive.

Helicopters are ridiculously expensive to purchase, maintain and fuel. Very little of the gear is provided by donation or grant.

SAR is a very small piece of the $250,000,000 a year budget that Metro has but that could easily be spent other items.

The majority of rescues in this country will always be free because you simply cannot have a person be afraid to call for a rescue due to financial concerns. No matter what creates the need for rescue; whether it be lost, injury or stupidity. Many municipalities do have provisions to charge for abuse of the system but I don't think it is done very often.

I'm really surprised by a lot of the responses in this thread. I would not have expected so many people who put themselves into places that could be require rescue to be so quick to judge someone else who required help.

John Wilder wrote:Human life in danger trumps economic fairness- even if that danger is self-imposed or not all that real. The perception of it alone is enough to make the government act. A government that does nothing to protect its citizens is a government that isn't long for this world.

Yeah- I want the government to protect me from my own actions. They should just make climbing illegal.

Eric, the point is that while those things cost money, they are not an addition to the taxpayer as an expense when a rescue happens. If someone with an interest in SAR wants to participate and spends that kind of money, that's up to them, not the taxpayer. The heli is more than likely part of the law enforcement budget which I already said is allocated for the sheriff to carry out their duty. Whether it's rescue, something else, or just sitting in a hangar bay, the money is allocated and already approved by the taxpayer. As would also be use of military, though it costs money to utilize, those funds are already in place.

If the SAR team has a budget within this, then those dollars go to equipment & upkeep for an overall time period, regardless of the type of response. Most of what I have experienced is donate and grant for team gear, and we also have a conservation & recreation fund to replace equipment -- which was all that banter on the first page about our dola fund. None of which goes as an extra bill to the taxpayer, rescuee, land-owner, or anyone or any agency; which was the point of the last few posts, what the taxpayer actually seeing when a climber rescue occurs. If the agencies plan it out and support the training of a professional SAR team (paid or unpaid), then it becomes less of a burden, and with more of a benefit as the community is helping each other out through a better use of resources. Answering a concern about prioritization when it comes to a climber rescue. I don't believe that climbers should concern themselves with this as a matter of deciding who does and doesn't deserve rescue response.

Charging for an abuse to the system is open to interpretation. Typically seen "negligence" clauses are actually a poor standard, because anyone requiring rescue is automatically deemed negligent, and that's not the case; as I said, this goes against the public service & humanitarian mandate. However, criminal conduct is typically seen as an accepted charge for rescue practice. This would be something like calling into dispatch and evading just to see the rescue response in the media. Going out for a hike or a climb isn't criminal activity, that's just recreation.

How is a rescue service different from other government money spent to protect its citizens from themselves? The war on drugs costs billions of dollars and the whole purpose supposedly it to prevent people from being able to make a bad decision.

crewdoglm wrote:There is water flowing at the bottom for God's sake

I'll give you a $100 to drink that water. I can't even fathom how many turds are in that creek bed.

The Dread Pirate Killis wrote:I love politics. Brings out the best in all of us. Man the torpedoes!

You don't man torpedoes.

Maybe we should...