When wealthy adventurers take huge risks, who should pay for rescue attempts?

I was under the impression the National Guard needs flight time anyways, so if it's during a rescue, all the better. Like when you see acrobatic F-16s painted all friendly and not as harbingers of death from above, it counts towards the pilot's flight time and they need a certain amount of hours to be qualified for things. 

Scott Dwrote:

To add onto this, there's a lot of expertise gained from working through complex rescue scenarios (like the Titan Submersible). Those lessons are beneficial in the public and private sector, they contribute to an important scientific and engineering knowledge base as well. 

Well, it was all mock, via computers, but the local SAR here was a major participant in a large scale exercise for if/when the Cascadia fault ever blows. That one is worth googling! Basically, wipe out everything in the PNW along the coast and the entire I5 corridor. HUGE disaster.

Idaho was where the refugees would end up, and, SAR is a big part of any potential major disaster that wipes out infrastructure, because they are set up for fully independent communications, with their bread and butter being backcountry operations . Even more so than much of law enforcement.

My (SAR) son just got back from a 2 day training with the FBI, held in Montana.

Cell phone forensics.

His SAR unit now has drones that track body heat signatures, and are early adopters of a new software program that uses historical data to map likely locations for lost people. Apparently most of us crash and burn kinda predictably, lol!

All of this?

Trickles down, and flows around, agency to agency.

I would last like to add?

People who are involved with rescue operations?

Live to serve others. Big time.

H.

Kind of.  Most SAR groups won't charge for the rescue but they will charge reimbursables for anything that they're charged for.  Think transportation (boats, helicopters, ect).  That's why it's still good to have SAR insurance.  

Wade Bankswrote:

How would one go about affording a personal plane and not be considered “wealthy”. I can’t even afford to own a car if I want to do anything besides work and eat ramen.

Flaw to your logic is you're assuming everyone in a plane owns it. Maybe the flight that goes down in the mountains is an Air Charity Network life flight transporting a cancer patient to their chemo? Does the patient deserve rescue but the "wealthy" plane owner not? Also, that being "wealthy" somehow means you don't deserve the same level of public service as someone less affluent is just as offensive as saying that "poor" people who don't pay a lot in taxes haven't "earned" the cost of public safety services. 

Dow Williamswrote:

When wealthy adventurers take huge risks, who should pay for rescue attempts?

The overall problem with pointing to examples like the submersible search or a rescue of some around the world sailor is that it's using the most extreme outliers to define the situation. Hey, maybe millionaires going down to 12,000 feet to see a sunken ship in an experimental submersible need to put up a bond for possible rescue. I wouldn't argue with that. But that kind of scenario isn't even a decimal point of the routine SAR activity. Most of that is cars over the side of a cliff, recreational boaters with a broken motor, hikers with a medical crisis in the backcountry, etc. If you want to make SAR a pay per use item then get ready for there to be a lot of death and mayhem in the wilds. Imagine saying that fire departments should only expend public resources on particular structure fires? Or that you should have to pony up a suitcase full of cash before a lifeguard swims out to pull you from a rip at my local beach because you didn't know what you were doing? 

Chad Millerwrote:

Kind of.  Most SAR groups won't charge for the rescue but they will charge reimbursables for anything that they're charged for.  Think transportation (boats, helicopters, ect).  That's why it's still good to have SAR insurance.  

More states should kick it New Hampshire style by charging those whose actions could be considered reckless by their lack of preparation, skillset, or conditions assessment - or a combination of those factors.  

Lion Forestwrote:

More states should kick it New Hampshire style by charging those whose actions could be considered reckless by their lack of preparation, skillset, or conditions assessment - or a combination of those factors.  

You mean like climbing up vertical rock for no reason other than personal enjoyment?

Lion Forest wrote:

With the proper experience and assessment, you probably know just as well as anyone that climbing isn't necessarily reckless, but good effort.  

Responding here since I'm up against the MP 3-posts per day limit. Lion, you and I both think we're not being reckless when we climb, but  a broad sweep of the tax-paying public thinks we're INSANE. If you believe people are going to make the distinction between "safe" rock climbing and "reckless" rock climbing when deciding who gets public safety benefits free and who pays, you are dreaming.

Normies tend to think anything more heart-pounding than golf or pickle ball is reckless. And they'll be the ones deciding. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

You mean like climbing up vertical rock for no reason other than personal enjoyment? 

With the proper experience and assessment, you probably know just as well as anyone that climbing isn't necessarily reckless, but good effort.  

Andrew Ricewrote:

You mean like climbing up vertical rock for no reason other than personal enjoyment?

Responding here since I'm up against the MP 3-posts per day limit. Lion, you and I both think we're not being reckless when we climb, but I think a broad sweep of the tax-paying public thinks we're INSANE. If you think people are going to make the distinction between "safe" rock climbing and "reckless" rock climbing when deciding who gets public safety benefits free and who pays, you are dreaming.

Normies tend to think anything more heart-pounding than golf or pickle ball is reckless. And they'll be the ones deciding. 

In New Hampshire, most rescues ( which are under the jurisdiction of the State Fish and Wildlife Department—might not have the name exactly right) don’t lead to the imposition of costs on those involved, but in certain circumstances they are determined to be appropriate. There is an investigation or type of inquest that makes that determination—usually involving very knowledgeable people. From the situations that I am aware of, I think that most of us would agree with the results—usually folks who ignore well-publicized or obvious weather issues or go out woefully unprepared for the obvious circumstances or those who use their cellphones to call for help in situations where they could easily have walked out in their own. Obviously there is always the risk that such cost recoupment could be sought for people just because they engage in activities—such as climbing, that the general public considers to be inherently reckless but, so far at least, that hasn’t been the experience in New Hampshire.

Andrew Ricewrote:

You mean like climbing up vertical rock for no reason other than personal enjoyment?

Responding here since I'm up against the MP 3-posts per day limit. Lion, you and I both think we're not being reckless when we climb, but I think a broad sweep of the tax-paying public thinks we're INSANE. If you think people are going to make the distinction between "safe" rock climbing and "reckless" rock climbing when deciding who gets public safety benefits free and who pays, you are dreaming.

Normies tend to think anything more heart-pounding than golf or pickle ball is reckless. And they'll be the ones deciding. 

Fortunately, in NH, it's not up to the public, but comes down to an investigation by fish & game and then civil judges to affirm or deny the fish and game determination after evaluating the facts.  No, it's not perfect, and on occasion folks undeservingly get a bill, but generally, it seems like the folks who get charged were really acting quite recklessly - charging off into the hills w/o checking the forecast that included days of awful conditions, winter ascents without ice axes and crampons, etc.  

Highly recommend any and all of Ty Gagne's books for insight on this matter.  Also, sandy Scott and nic howe. 

Case in point, that snowboarder who dropped into a crevasse this winter was definitely reckless and would have been charged if wasn't able to self-rescue.  Or more likely, his estate would have been billed. 

I have far less sympathy for the Convenience Rescues that seem to be becoming more common, like the children that called for a rescue in Redrocks earlier this year because it was getting dark. BILL THOSE ASSHOLES, DOUBLE TIME.

Rescue fees should not be means-tested. I am ok with idiot-testing.... if determined to be idiot, the bill is rendered.

I think unless it’s an ‘act of god’ type accident everyone should have to pay for their rescues. 

Dow Williamswrote:

When wealthy adventurers take huge risks, who should pay for rescue attempts?

Several interesting inserts.  

Nine years later, after Fossett’s plane vanished over Nevada during what should have been a short flight, the state National Guard launched a months-long search that turned up the wreckage of several other decades-old crashes without finding the millionaire.  The state said the mission had cost taxpayers $685,998, with $200,000 covered by a private contribution. But when the administration of Gov. Jim Gibbons announced that it would seek reimbursement for the rest, Fossett’s widow balked, noting she had spent $1 million on her own private search.

Risky adventurism is hardly unique to wealthy people.  The pandemic drove a surge in visits to places like national parks, adding to the popularity of climbing, hiking and other outdoor activities. Meanwhile, the spread of cellphones and service has left many feeling that if things go wrong, help is a call away.  Some places have laws commonly referred to as “stupid motorist laws,” in which drivers are forced to foot the emergency response bill when they ignore barricades on submerged roads. Arizona has such a law, and Volusia County in Florida, home to Daytona, enacted similar legislation this week. The idea of a similar “stupid hiker law” is a regularly debated item in Arizona as well, with so many unprepared people needing to be rescued in stifling triple-digit heat.

It is a topic I have covered for several decades, both in Canada and the US.  My first take has always been if the average local and/or state tax payer does not care, then of course I don't.  The quandary has always been, do they know that money that could go to "essential services" is spent on middle class and wealthy tourists who make plenty of poor choices and decisions, with zero effort of reimbursement.

Trick question, everyone should pay for their own rescues with insurance.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

I have far less sympathy for the Convenience Rescues that seem to be becoming more common, like the children that called for a rescue in Redrocks earlier this year because it was getting dark. BILL THOSE ASSHOLES, DOUBLE TIME.

Rescue fees should not be means-tested. I am ok with idiot-testing.... if determined to be idiot, the bill is rendered.

Idiot testing? Happens around the clock here at MP, and most people score close to 100. 

As mentioned earlier, in New Hampshire you can be, albeit rarely done, charged with a rescue if you are found to be negligent. However, you get a pass if you have pre purchased a "safe hiker" card from the state for $25. $35 and your whole family can call for help when it gets dark.

Alan Rubinwrote:

In New Hampshire, most rescues ( which are under the jurisdiction of the State Fish and Wildlife Department—might not have the name exactly right) don’t lead to the imposition of costs on those involved, but in certain circumstances they are determined to be appropriate. There is an investigation or type of inquest that makes that determination—usually involving very knowledgeable people. From the situations that I am aware of, I think that most of us would agree with the results—usually folks who ignore well-publicized or obvious weather issues or go out woefully unprepared for the obvious circumstances or those who use their cellphones to call for help in situations where they could easily have walked out in their own. 

California law would also allow the recouping of costs by public authorities in situations where there was an underlying criminal act (ie trespassing in a closed flood or fire zone...) or extreme negligence. But it's almost never pursued. I wouldn't relish the thought of saddling the CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife with yet another burden of investigation. They already have their hands full and resources stretched investigating poaching, wildlife trafficking, etc. I'd be very curious to see if New Hampshire has ever run a P&L on their recoveries for costs vs. the costs of these investigations. And, also, if they've noticed in change in public behavior (less dumb behavior) or not. I find it difficult that someone hapless enough to wander into the winter wilderness with no map and wearing all cotton clothing, for example, has enough foresight to do something different just because they might get fined. 

Tradibanwrote:

Trick question, everyone should pay for their own rescues with insurance.

I pay a SHITLOAD of taxes and I'm happy to. But I expect my chopper ride off Tahquitz when I break both legs to be included in that. 

I'm fine with taxpayers footing the bill for anyone's search and/or rescue. Rich people should be paying way more taxes anyway... right? They are, right???

This article by the American Alpine Club provides some interesting counterpoints: “Climbing Rescues in America: Reality Does Not Support ‘High-Risk, High-Cost’ Perception.” While it is from 2005, and it would be nice to see some updated figures, much of it may still apply.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The fatality rate for climbing has dropped dramatically over the last several decades in the United States and at many popular mountains, refuting the commonly held perception that rapid growth in the number of climbers has translated into more rescues and more fatalities.
• Climbing and mountaineering rescues are limited in number and occur less frequently than seemingly safer activities like hiking, boating, hunting, swimming and motor vehicle use. 
• The complexity of climbing rescues and the ability of climbers to self-rescue in minor accidents make climbing rescues more expensive on average than rescues of many other recreational groups, but the most expensive rescues are searches for lost persons. 
• Most climbing rescues are performed by highly skilled volunteer rescue units who do not charge or by specialized park rangers whose costs are often subsidized by climbing use fees, making climbing rescues less of a drain on taxpayers than rescues of other recreational participants. 
• Charging for climbing rescues runs counter to national search and rescue policies, opens government agencies up to costly lawsuits and tends to delay the call for help, putting rescuers and victims at greater risk. 
• Though several states have laws allowing the recovery of rescue costs, most have been used in only the most egregious cases—and none has been used to recover costs from a mountaineer or rock climber. Federal regulations allow land managers to fine people who create hazardous situations. 
• Mountain rescues, like all emergency response activities, involve inherent risks to rescuers. Volunteer and professional mountain rescuers have an exemplary safety record, especially when compared to fatalities for other emergency response providers. 
• Taken together, these factors show that there is little justification for singling out climbers to pay rescue costs if other groups continue to be rescued without charge.

Andrew Ricewrote:

I pay a SHITLOAD of taxes and I'm happy to. But I expect my chopper ride off Tahquitz when I break both legs to be included in that. 

Well aren't you an entitled little libertarian . . .