When paying for a license or "lift ticket", I expect rescue to be part of the deal, so feel my skiing, boating and snowmobiling rescue is covered. In Switzerland, there is insurance to buy on top of a lift ticket, which goes to defray rescue costs. You do not have to buy insurance, but you do have to pay for a rescue.
Hikers are the problem. They don't pay any state fees to use the woods, yet are rescued by state and local funded agencies. Perhaps an insurance or hiker license system would work. The national park fees are probably not relevant here. As far as I am aware, the national park fees don't get funneled to the local rescue squads or F&G.
It is unfair to put the true rescue cost on the persons being rescued, because they have no control over the services rendered, however, the money has to come from somewhere. Rescuers can be counted on for a lot, but need the proper resources to conduct their job safely and effectively.
I disagree strongly with the attitude of "let the fools die". I would rather have my tax dollars go to rescuing a "crack pot tree hugging whack job flat lander" than see my town's "donor dollars" go to Manchester so they can divert school tax dollars to trash collection.
__________________
-lg
|