Charge Hikers F&G rescue Fee

[nightrider]

It’s time the State of NH starts charging a rescue fee for hikers to use public trails. This recent rescue cost F&G tens of thousands of dollars. Then when it comes time to balance the budget, it’s done on the backs of boaters, sledders, hunters and fishermen. And on top of it all, these do-gooder tree huggers complain about the motorized sporting world while recreational motorists and sportsmen foot the bill to rescue their decisionally-challenged. Why is it two hikers can intentionally venture out into a life threatening situation which virtually assures a major, and expensive, rescue effort but it's illegal for snowmobilers to "skim". Same risk (although I venture to say skimming is safer than what these two hikers did). Time to end the free ride. Institute a season hiking pass or similar revenue raising plan to use public trails and have F&G patrol them the same way they patrol sled trails. Have fines for use without a pass. Make it illegal for people to hike into conditions which are obviously dangerous and possibly life threatening. I know legislation was passed which allows the state to charge the rescuees for their rescue however, is it truly implemeted??? I read about these rescues but never read or hear about any subsequent monetary recovery. Think of the resources this single rescue incident has incurred and because of it, the reduction of funds F&G has remaining to perform all the jobs they are charged with doing. Stop raising fees, license costs and registrations to boaters, sledders, hunters and fishermen and allow hikers to pay their fair share.

[Bear Islander]

A permit to walk on public property, great idea. But why stop there, thousands of people run on public ways, a lot of them have accidents or heart attacks, then they expect somebody to rush in and give them a free ride to the hospital. A running permit could raise a fortune.

How about we simply enforce the laws we have now (where have I heard that before?) and charge idiots for their own rescue.

[jrc]

Well we can't just let people decide on there own what's safe or not. We have to have fixed numbers otherwise it willl never stand up in court. I think you should have to pay for your own rescue if you venture out when it below 45 degrees or when it's below 25 at night. After all 45 degrees is cold enough, why should we have to risk people to rescue daredevils hiking in the cold.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well we can't just let people decide on there own what's safe or not. We have to have fixed numbers otherwise it willl never stand up in court. I think you should have to pay for your own rescue if you venture out when it below 45 degrees or when it's below 25 at night. After all 45 degrees is cold enough, why should we have to risk people to rescue daredevils hiking in the cold.

While I do not agree with the notion to charge people to hike, I do agree with charging them for their own stupidity they do it if I sink a Ford Explorer into the lake to remove it or if I sink my boat because it hurts nature, (no the Explorer was not me, and I did not sink my boat), by having these ridiculous rescues it is taking money out of F&G for other things, the rescue is important to save a life but the reasons need to be assesed and charged accordingly. Lets face it no one should have been out on Sunday, hence why they were the only ones that needed to be rescued, just like the lake or the sea, watch and listen to the weather reports, no one is above Mother Nature, no one!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well we can't just let people decide on there own what's safe or not. We have to have fixed numbers otherwise it willl never stand up in court. I think you should have to pay for your own rescue if you venture out when it below 45 degrees or when it's below 25 at night. After all 45 degrees is cold enough, why should we have to risk people to rescue daredevils hiking in the cold.

A person can hike or mountain climb at temperatures below 45 degrees but not be a suicidal daredevil. With the proper equipment, training and experience it is possible to travel in extremely low temperatures in relative safety.

People ski, downhill and cross-country, at temperatures well below 45 degrees. The risks are comparable with hiking.

And I think you might be overstating the danger the rescuers are in. People called on to rescue climbers are climbers themselves, they understand the risks, and have volunteered for the duty.

If the rescue teams themselves start complaining about the risks, then it would be appropriate to listen to them. The opinion of the inexperienced that were not there is doubly suspect.

[Treerider]

So did the Helicopter pilot volunteer too? Who PAID for the fuel for the chopper? I can assure you it wasn't cheap......what if the chopper had crashed in the wind???

[fatlazyless]

Slightly off topic here...probably you've heard of the NH 4000'er club, and the NH Winter 4000'er club.After hik'n all 48 of the NH 4000'ers you can purchase a small patch for your backpack, after undergoing a 2 day, interrogation procedure that affirms you have honestly done all 48 mountains..

Did you know that there is now also a NH midnight 4000'er club. To get the midnight patch, you have to be on the summits at midnight.

What's next? .....a Winter midnight 4000'er club!

Hiker's already pay the US Forest Service either $3.00/day or 24.00/year for trail head parking.

Instead of sending out a rescue team, why not just leave the frozen hikers out there for the Canadian Jays, red squirrels and maybe an American Eagle? Would winter hikers think twice if they knew they were all on their own?

[hockeypuck]

Charging for a rescue may sound good on the surface, but where does it start or end. I agree that there seems to be something wrong with the public having to bear the expense for the poor judgement of others, but I think there is a social contract here that all states adhere to; that is to provide aid to those in distress, no matter what actions initiated the problem. Are we going to charge swimmers who swim out over their head, or pilots that crash in the mountains or skiers caught in an avalanche and the list goes on an on. Kinda gives a new meaning to "Live Free or Die."

[jrc]

I'm just trying to find consistent logic:


A person can boat at speeds above 45 mph but not be a suicidal daredevil. With the proper equipment, training and experience it is possible to travel at extremely high speeds in relative safety.

People boat, and waterski, at speeds well above 45 mph. The risks are comparable with swimming.

And I think you might be overstating the danger that other lake users are in. People called on to police boaters are boaters themselves, they understand the risks, and have applied for the duty.

If the marine patrol themselves start complaining about the risks, then it would be appropriate to listen to them. The opinion of the inexperienced that were not there is doubly suspect.

[froggy]

In the Swiss Alps at a full ski area a friend broke leg. He had to reimburse all costs incurred, by the ski patrol. The higher up we were, the more the fee as there were gondola rides down. Food for thought!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by froggy

In the Swiss Alps at a full ski area a friend broke leg. He had to reimburse all costs incurred, by the ski patrol. The higher up we were, the more the fee as there were gondola rides down. Food for thought!

You can buy rescue insurance from the Swiss Air Rescue Service. Check out http://www.rega.ch/en/goenner/start_goenner.aspx If you become a "patron", for $30, they wave the rescue fee. Not a bad idea for NH rescues that require more than local town resources.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'm just trying to find consistent logic:


A person can boat at speeds above 45 mph but not be a suicidal daredevil. With the proper equipment, training and experience it is possible to travel at extremely high speeds in relative safety.

People boat, and waterski, at speeds well above 45 mph. The risks are comparable with swimming.

And I think you might be overstating the danger that other lake users are in. People called on to police boaters are boaters themselves, they understand the risks, and have applied for the duty.

If the marine patrol themselves start complaining about the risks, then it would be appropriate to listen to them. The opinion of the inexperienced that were not there is doubly suspect.

There are laws and rules that regulate hikers and mountain climbers. Where you can go, what you can bring, what you can't do along the way. Boating on public waters should also have regulations consistent with that activity. That includes speed and horsepower limits in certain places at certain times.

As an additional argument I will point out there are many, many places you have a "right" to go on foot, but are not allowed to bring a vehicle.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are laws and rules that regulate hikers and mountain climbers. Where you can go, what you can bring, what you can't do along the way. Boating on public waters should also have regulations consistent with that activity. That includes speed and horsepower limits in certain places at certain times.

As an additional argument I will point out there are many, many places you have a "right" to go on foot, but are not allowed to bring a vehicle.

JRC and BI might be getign alittle off topic here, I think what the original things is that go and do what you want when you want, but you might have to pay for it if somethign goes wrong, here is your possibilities, yes there is a social issue with yes everyone should be protected, and those that hockypuck mention like the plane crashign most of the time is an accident and in that case no charge should be considered, but when you knowing have all the rsik infront of you you should bear the risk that goes along with it. Boaters have to pay to be on the lake with registration, have to pay for gas and have to pay to be rescued via tows and or other issues, like boat and environmental repairs and insurance.

Hikers do not have insurance costs except for themselves as life insurance, no insurance to reimburse the costs no real fees for doing somethign in the environment like boating, and likely so that is fine. But for a rescue effort and I think this is what thread is trying to discuss. And on this point, YES, the costs of fuel and resources and materials should be accounted for in situations like this. Now if it could be deemed a "true accident" like a leg being broken on a hike up the mountain on a non life endangering day then it is another story and they should be held accountable.


Also the volunteer's risk, they do know and that is not what I care about, they want to do it, they are better people than I am, I also have no experience.

On last thing and I will stop and read reactions - Skiers pay to ski mountains via lift tickets, and those mountains that do not have lift for real skiing, they have to pay to get up there somehow via helicopter or guides, there are costs involved.

[jrc]

My point was you can't pick arbitrary numbers for either deciding when it's too cold to hike or what's too fast a speed to travel in a boat. Both are based on the skill of the person and the conditions, not on a number decided by people who aren't there.

I'll drop this because it's off topic and I'm being rude to the people looking for information on hiking. Just to be clear, I only think people should be charged for their rescue, if they do something reckless, negligent and un-safe based on the conditions and their skill. This would be something that the rescuers or other professionals thought a reasonable and prudent person would not do.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by hockeypuck

Charging for a rescue may sound good on the surface, but where does it start or end.

Unfortunately it starts with things like outlawing skimming. Whether you agree with nightrider or not, he does use that as a point in his argument, and the slippery slope goes down hill from there.

[kjbathe]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How about we simply enforce the laws we have now (where have I heard that before?) and charge idiots for their own rescue.

Amen. Legislation is never going to cure stupidity or create common sense. I believe we need more of the latter rather than piling on with yet more fees, regulations, rules or laws that can't effectively be enforced.

But when looking at "rescue cost", is it really some additional incremental cost directly attributed to the rescue? For example, was the Air Guard not going to use the fuel if they didn't burn it during the rescue? And isn't their participation part of very reason why the capability exists? Sure, they may not have been flying that night in that location, but they surely would have been flying and getting the experience somewhere.

I believe in personal responsibility and the golden rule. If there's a risk and cost incurred and you feel compelled to send me a bill for saving my hide, then that's a debt I should pay. But I'm also skeptical when we start tallying up estimated or actual rescue costs for efforts performed by volunteers or people we would have been paying to be at work anyway -- that's not real "cost". And can you imagine if we actually regressed to the place where Air Guard or Coast Guard rescues are managed like health care, where the first question in response to your mayday is a check of credit status and available balance on your visa card? "Do you have insurance? No? OK, you get to freeze to death."

Sometimes I wonder if there's a different agenda involved -- agency heads angling for more budget dollars, or special interest groups looking to make a point? Maybe. But even then it probably doesn't matter. People will be idiots, and other folks will get into honest trouble through no fault of their own. And most of us will continue to offer assistance where we can - law or no law, uncompensated or not. That's the way decent people should be.

[hockeypuck]

kjbathe, well said. I agree 100%

[Weirs guy]

The dumbing down of society?

Seat belt and helmet laws, free rescues, forcing workmen to wear hard hats... At some point does our responsibility as a society change from "protecting everyone" to "thinning the herd"? I'm not saying that we should abandon people left and right, but at some point doesn't it become self destructive to save everyone from themselves?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hockeypuck

"...I think there is a social contract here that all states adhere to; that is to provide aid to those in distress, no matter what actions initiated the problem..."

California has just had a law proposed today to recover expenses following a government-provided entourage that cost $24,000.

It's to named "The Britney Spears Law" in her honor.
http://www.inform.com/Britney+Spears

[fmgate]

Nightrider brings up some interesting points. I certainly agree that if you are rescued, you probably should incur the costs of that rescue. And the hiking pass or "pay to play" idea is intriguing and may need to be scrutinized more closely. Certainly, many may find the idea abhorrent. Just look the controversy with the pay-to-play plans in cash strapped school systems where families are expected to pay for their children's involvement in extracurricular sports. But having Fish & Game patrol hiking trails sounds like a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare (not to mention expensive). And who is to judge when conditions are dangerous and life threatening? Nightrider's legislative solution is probably unfeasible, or impossible to enforce. Pay-to-play seems to be the most viable option.

To add fodder for the discussion, here are some interesting stats:

-- For FY 2007, the search and rescue surcharge on boats, OHRV, and snowmobile registrations totaled $257,659.

-- Between 2002-2007, 822 rescue missions were conducted by Fish & Game;48.2% of those missions involved hikers. Hikers incurred 46.1% of the rescue mission costs.

The first stat is interesting because the surcharge collected for rescue missions account for about 1% of the entire Fish & Game budget. Not too big if you ask me.

The second set of stats is interesting because it shows that hikers are certainly assessed fees. Furthermore, the amount paid by hikers is roughly proportional to how often they are involved in a rescue. [I say this with the caveat that not all rescue missions are created equal. Some are more expensive than others.] Finally, can one assume that the remaining 51.8% of rescue missions involve non-hikers, such as boaters, snowmobilers, and the like? If so, then there is some justification for keeping some sort of surcharge on boats, OHRVs, and snowmobiles.

I think the reason nightrider doesn't hear about the monetary recovery is because it often occurs privately between Fish & Game and the entity that was rescued, often months after the event. Well after everyone has forgotten about the rescue, the collected fees are slipped into a budget or a line item buried deep within some report. And like any budget or year-end report, it makes for boring journalism. Certainly not as sensationalistic as the original rescue!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

...when looking at "rescue cost", is it really some additional incremental cost directly attributed to the rescue? For example, was the Air Guard not going to use the fuel if they didn't burn it during the rescue? And isn't their participation part of very reason why the capability exists? Sure, they may not have been flying that night in that location, but they surely would have been flying and getting the experience somewhere.

Some of the best training comes with real rescue incidents but the risk is more controlled during schedule training exercises. When life is on the line, the rescuers often put theirs on the line as well. That is an incremental cost to them that warrants extra care by those who use the state and national forests.

[Coolbreeze]

Here in Pennsylvania it costs a patient $2000.00 to be Medevacd to a hospital that is rumored to be the minimum cost for this service. Ultimately it costs the tax payers to perform the rescue and pay for those involved. Tax money supports most F&G agencies. The volunteers do it for other reasons but why should they have to front the bill for fuel etc to perform these rescues. I feel that the bill for a rescue should start at the initial call to 911. The person that needs to be rescued should pay the bill for rescue services rendered just like they pay at the emergency room when they get there. It is the fault of the emergency services that they do not send the patients insurance company a bill for services rendered or the cost of materials used.
it is a billable item.

[kjbathe]

Originally Posted by Coolbreeze

The volunteers do it for other reasons but why should they have to front the bill for fuel etc to perform these rescues.

Because they choose to. And thank God they opt to do the right thing rather than perform a personal cost-benefit assessment before heading out...

Originally Posted by Coolbreeze

It is the fault of the emergency services that they do not send the patients insurance company a bill for services rendered or the cost of materials used. it is a billable item.

And when the patient has no insurance and you and I are paying for it anyway? It's a slippery slope toward something that would cost more to manage than we would ever benefit from.

Can you imagine the litigation involved as each side pads and dissects the cost -- why were x State Troopers called when only y had a role... You charged me x dollars for y gallons of JP6, when the cost at the time was... A blackhawk wasn't necessary, and for x% of the cost you could have used ground hikers... It would never end!! It might be great for the lawyers and insurance companies, but for the rest of us?

It's the nature of where we live. For centuries, people have found themselves in a bad spot and have needed to be plucked off the side of a white mountain, dragged out of the frozen lake, or simply rescued from a burning home. And we do it because it's the right thing to do, and if we didn't, they would die. It's kind of scary that we might start to look at these things in terms of billable items.

[LIforrelaxin]

When it comes down to it, what people need to really think about in these situations is intent. No one goes into the woods for a hike planning to break a leg, twist and ankle, or fall down a slop and end up on a ledge with no avenue for escape. So there are cases where people legitimately need to get rescued because of an accident. My brother worked for the US forest Service and he helped many people out of the woods, that just had plain old bad luck.

Now when things happen because of negligence we have another story and people should be made to pay some restitution. Some points in case, back when I lived in Washington State, 3 lawyers went of hiking in the Olympic range all three of whom had little experience. One of them read that the best thing to do with used toliet paper was burn it. So someone, went to the bathroom, created a pile of paper, lit a match started it going and walked away. the next thing anyone new because it had been a dry summer, thousands of acres where burnt. Should someone in that incident be held accountable... yes, and the last time I knew the lawyers where still trying to pay there way out of the mess. Another case I know of was an incident my brother was involved in, on a nice fall morning, while working on a trail on Mt Washington, a man passed by my brother in flip flops, shorts and a tank top. He was advised by my brother, and the rest of the forest service crew to turn around. The wind was blowing up top and there had been reports of snow squals..... well several hours later, who where my brother, and his fellow rangers looking for.... yep Mr. Flip Flop..... who got caught in a squal, got disoriented, cramped up and was freezing cold when they found him. My feeling yes someone like that should pay for there rescue.

In short, trying to rescue and help another human being is part of being human. I know I can't pass by people in trouble. And as long as the problem is not brought about by stupidity, then what is the harm. However if something is brought on by a truely negligent act, well then possibly it is time to teach the person a lesson and charge them.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Coolbreeze

Ultimately it costs the tax payers to perform the rescue and pay for those involved. Tax money supports most F&G agencies. The volunteers do it for other reasons but why should they have to front the bill for fuel etc to perform these rescues. I feel that the bill for a rescue should start at the initial call to 911. The person that needs to be rescued should pay the bill for rescue services rendered just like they pay at the emergency room when they get there. It is the fault of the emergency services that they do not send the patients insurance company a bill for services rendered or the cost of materials used.
it is a billable item.

The issue I see here is what defines a rescue? certainly through taxes, and other revenue sources, fire departments, police, and rescue teams are funded especially in large towns, and cities, to provide certain amounts of service. So then someone is going to have to decided what services are assumed the responsibility of the rescue organization, and what are not.

Case in point, someone is trapped in a burning building, and is indeed rescued buy a firefighter. Is this a rescue that should be charged for? after all the firefighter was not actually fighting the fire, he was involved in a rescue opertation. Just food for thought....

[Weirs guy]

Glad I don't have to pay for the service on the helicopter.

Wait, I do!

http://www.wmur.com/news/15327379/detail.html

[SIKSUKR]

I watched the helicopter flying around Lafayette while skiing at Cannon Sunday.Here's WMUR's story:


FRANCONIA, N.H. -- A Boston hiker was released from the hospital Sunday after a spending a dangerous night lost in Franconia Notch.

Benjamin Davis, 28, left for a hike Friday morning and lost his way.

New Hampshire Fish and Game and the National Guard managed to find Davis more than 24 hours later. Officials said if they hadn't found Davis, he most likely wouldn't have made it another night.

Davis said he got lost in white-out conditions and just kept turning around. State officials said Davis began his hike near Mount Lafayette and finally text-messaged his girlfriend Saturday to let her know he was lost.

The area where crews found Davis is the same nine-mile loop where hikers got lost last week. One later died from exposure to the elements.

It took rescuers about 40 minutes to find Davis, using cell phone coordinates and a headlamp he was shining up at them. From a helicopter, crews dropped a rescuer down to Davis and lifted him to safety.

[fatlazyless]

Are these two still missing? Today's, Tuesday Union Leader has a new story about two guys who were planning on hiking the Presidentials, all the way from Appalachia parking lot on route two in Randolph to the AMC Highland Center in Crawford Notch in one 24 hour day. That would be hiking over Mts Madison, Adams,Jefferson, Clay, Washington, Monroe,, Reagan, & Eisenhauer. Did I miss one?

Where could they be? Maybe at Crag Camp or Grey Knob cabins, drinking Swiss Miss w/ little marshmellos, which are about one mile down from the summit of Adams? Nice spot on a rainy night!

Hiking over crusty snow, on a warm and very rainy day.....lol.

[SIKSUKR]

WMUR's story



POSTED: 3:00 pm EST February 18, 2008
UPDATED: 7:37 am EST February 19, 2008


CRAWFORD NOTCH, N.H. -- Teams suspended their search Monday night for two Virginia hikers believed lost in Crawford Notch.

Fish and Game Department officials said Alex Obert, 30, and Steven McCay, 29, both of Arlington, Va., were planning to hike Presidential Traverse and exit at the Highland Center at the top of Crawford Notch on Sunday afternoon.

The two men were last seen at about 8:30 a.m. Sunday and might have been spotted by hikers north of Jefferson, N.H., at about 11:30 a.m., officials said.

Several teams swept the trails on foot and stopped the search at 9 p.m. Monday. Officials said rainy conditions were making the search difficult.

The men are believed to be well equipped with good hiking experience.

Friends of the men said they are paramedics and firefighters in Virginia. The men hiked the same area of the Presidential Trail last summer and had recently ice climbed in Colorado.

[hazelnut]

It's called taxes. Just as it has been said in this thread. The real cost is obscured by the fact that some of these rescuers receive a salary for being at work. That salary pays for their training and preparedness in the event that they are needed. Some are volunteers as well. Of course there is the fuel for the chopper and things like that. We all pay for that same service provided every day by our law enforcement officers to be there when rescue is needed. Similar to driving a car and getting in an accident, police and fire are there for us when we need them. I know it isn't the same as people making bad decisions wandering off into the woods.... or is it? People who drive dangerously and end up wrapped around a pole due to negligence and or alcohol consumption are in the same category. Are these people charged? Probably not. We all foot the bill for stupidity every day, it's called living in a society. My thought is it aint changin anytime soon. So the only option is to dig a snow cave in the Northwest territory if you don't like it.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Similar to driving a car and getting in an accident, police and fire are there for us when we need them. I know it isn't the same as people making bad decisions wandering off into the woods.... or is it?

After the 3rd car skids off an icy road they either send the sand truck or close the road. When the 3rd group of hikers gets lost we just fire up the chopper and go looking again?

Fool me once.....

[fatlazyless]

These two guys from Virginia hiked a very long distance in a very short time, going from the base of Mt Madison to Mt Pleasant and then down the Dry River Trail. Doing that in the summer would be hugely challenging. Somewhat like running a marathon. It's a surprise they were able to do it what with the deep snow with a crust on top.

Supposedly, the cash price for those with no insurance coverage, for a DHART helicopter ambulance ride to Dartmouth Hospital is $14,000. Wonder how they figure the price of a National Guard Blackhawk helicopter, or if they just chaulk it off as a training run? It's not unusual to see two A10S whart hog, fighters swoop'n & loop'n low in the White Mts, lookn' for a make believe Osama, or somethin'.

"Hey, looky here....no hands and its 145 knots at 250', low enuf to see the color of the wax on their cross country skis!

[CanisLupusArctos]

As a winter hiker who enjoys hiking the higher summits a lot more in the snow than when the bugs, mud, and tourists are in full-swing, I don't want the government passing 'negligence' judgment on me, should I forget something I'd normally remember... we're all human. Who in the government has ever been perfect enough to make such a call against someone else? No one.

Therefore if they find it hard to fund the cost of rescues in the mountains, they ought to consider billing for mountain rescue the same way as most ambulances bill. Even many municipal ambulance services are billing patients to offset the costs of rescues in town.

In many cities and towns nationwide, municipal rescue services are *free* for taxpayers in that city/town, but non-taxpayers get billed when they use the services.

Perhaps the State of NH should try such a model for mountain rescues. Seems to me it's a much more fair way to fund the service than if the government decided it had the necessary knowledge to determine who's a negligent mountain climber and who's not.

Plus, consider the psychology: When a freedom-minded mountain climber (I know many of them personally) sees a sign that says "We'll bill you if we think you're negligent," his first thought is, "I'll sue to defend myself." However, if the same climber sees a sign that says, "Mountain Rescue now bills for all rescues, just like the ambulance does," his thought is going to be, "I'd better make sure I don't need rescue."

This could serve as a deterrent to some of the would-be idiots who currently think of mountain rescuers as the outdoor equivalent of hotel room service (and I'm not exaggerating here... the stories would make you say, "WHAT?")

So... if the mountain rescuers bill in the same way as the around-town rescuers, what about those who can't pay? Just as it is in the E.R., a rescued person who's poor should be able to fill out an application for free care, except in the case of mountain rescue their application would also include some sort of review to determine if negligence was a factor. If it was.... application for free care is rejected.

As for volunteer rescuers, like volunteers in almost any category, they do what they do because they WANT to. Like any volunteer work, if you suddenly find yourself unhappy doing it, it's probably time to consider whether or not you really want to be there.

[Coolbreeze]

Well said Canis, your theory is happening through out the country. You are correct regarding the volunteers except, most volunteers are not getting tired of volunteering for the rescue work; just getting tired of the work soliciting funds to properly and legally do their volunteer work.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by Coolbreeze

Well said Canis, your theory is happening through out the country. You are correct regarding the volunteers except, most volunteers are not getting tired of volunteering for the rescue work; just getting tired of the work soliciting funds to properly and legally do their volunteer work.

I can identify with that. When I was in college I was part of the campus volunteer rescue squad which also had the 911 contracts for the surrounding towns. There was always discussion of 'how to fund our service' because our call volume kept going up while student volunteership was going down. Staffing the trucks was getting harder as students got busier and it always seemed to be the same volunteers from town (non-students) who ended up pulling duty. They got burnt out after a while.

What ended up happening was they separated from the campus so they could incorporate and start billing the patients. With the increased revenue they were able to pay crews for staffing the less-popular shifts.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...I know it isn't the same as people making bad decisions wandering off into the woods.... or is it? People who drive dangerously and end up wrapped around a pole due to negligence and or alcohol consumption are in the same category. Are these people charged? Probably not. We all foot the bill for stupidity every day, it's called living in a society. My thought is it aint changin anytime soon..."

It's changin' in Michigan!

"...In the early spring of 2007, a 35 year old man from downstate Michigan buried his quad in a swampy portion of Bodi Lake. Photos of him having his four wheeler towed from the lake reached the Luce County Sheriff's Department, an investigation followed and the man was ticketed for the destruction. He was fined $250 payable to Luce County and $2000 in restitution payable to the State of Michigan.

"In addition, he lost ORV, snowmobile and boating privilages for one year and was given twelve months probation..."

[hazelnut]

One small step for mankind.....

[Bear Islander]

Coincidentally a friend of mine, Hannah, has had an accident and requires rescue. She is 425 miles from the North Pole and ever further from human habitation. I received an email yesterday from her saying she fell in a hole due to shifting ice and has injured her back and leg.

I am sponsoring her in her attempt to be the first woman to solo from land to the Pole. Luckily she was able to extract herself and set up her tent. Temperatures there are around 50 below. She is in a fracture zone so the question is can a ski plane can land in her vicinity. It takes about 4 hours to travel one mile in a fracture zone, so landing close is essential.

It makes my own problems seem very small.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

Please keep us up to date on her condition. I will pray for her safety and hope that she receives help. It makes you feel so helpless when you can't help someone in such a situation.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Coincidentally a friend of mine, Hannah, has had an accident and requires rescue. She is 425 miles from the North Pole and ever further from human habitation. I received an email yesterday from her saying she fell in a hole due to shifting ice and has injured her back and leg.

I am sponsoring her in her attempt to be the first woman to solo from land to the Pole. Luckily she was able to extract herself and set up her tent. Temperatures there are around 50 below. She is in a fracture zone so the question is can a ski plane can land in her vicinity. It takes about 4 hours to travel one mile in a fracture zone, so landing close is essential.

It makes my own problems seem very small.

and the answer is?

24 hours / 4 hours per mile = 6 miles

Have they reached Hannah?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander,

Please keep us up to date on her condition. I will pray for her safety and hope that she receives help. It makes you feel so helpless when you can't help someone in such a situation.

If you want to follow Hannah McKeand's ordeal or also be a sponsor you can visit her WEBSITE and obtain copious information on her trek. Pretty interesting stuff....

[hockeypuck]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A permit to walk on public property, great idea. But why stop there, thousands of people run on public ways, a lot of them have accidents or heart attacks, then they expect somebody to rush in and give them a free ride to the hospital. A running permit could raise a fortune.

How about we simply enforce the laws we have now (where have I heard that before?) and charge idiots for their own rescue.

Bear Island, I truly hope that your friend is rescued and fully recovers. The subject of this thread was about charging for the rescue of unfortunate victims. My position was that there is a social contract to rescue anyone in distress that most or all states adhere to. Your quote above implies that we should "charge idiots for their own rescue." Sounds a little harsh to me. Do you still feel the same way now that it is a friend in need?

[Bear Islander]

Hannah has been picked up and by the people at Alert, a Canadian base.

My comments about charging people for rescue was that idiots that get themselves in hot water through there own stupidity, should bear the costs. Hannah has a well thought out plan and is the most accomplished polar traveler alive. She has the record for the fastest time, man or woman, across Antarctica to the South Pole. Plus you can't travel to Antarctica or sledge to the North Pole without $300,000.00 worth of extraction insurance.

Emergency pick up is part of her contarct with Ken Borek Air, the same planes and pilots that flew us in Antarctica.

I am planning to sail around Cape Horn and then down to Antarctica on Hannah's sailboat next winter.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

My comments about charging people for rescue was that idiots that get themselves in hot water through there own stupidity, should bear the costs. Hannah has a well thought out plan and is the most accomplished polar traveler alive. She has the record for the fastest time, man or woman, across Antarctica to the South Pole. Plus you can't travel to Antarctica or sledge to the North Pole without $300,000.00 worth of extraction insurance.

OK, thank goodness she's safe and sound first off, and the insurance certainly makes "who pays" a moot point.

But to BI's point, what if the insurance wasn't in place? Personally I don't believe that "we" as a society should pay for such ordeals. Now I understand how cool it is that someone wants to brave something that no one else does, but my paying to save them from the dangers of such actions is akin to me asking everyone here to sponsor my quest to drink more beer this year then last year. Kinda cool for me, but do the rest of you really care? Do the rest of you feel the need to pay for that? What if I decide to swim from my beach to the pier after drinking my beer, who's responsible for paying to save me then?

[jrc]

I'm also glad that everyone is out alive.

Obviously, the well-heeled and well skilled can be as adventurous as their money will allow. But the question is what about John Q. Hiker who goes a little beyond his skill level and causes society to pay a lot of money to bail him out? Who decides how far is too far and how much is too much?

[chipj29]

Glad to hear your friend made it out OK BI.
However, you talk about people getting themselves into hot water through their own stupidity. Now define stupidity. The reason I say that, is that some people may consider what Hannah did, to be stupid. Adventurous..absolutely. But is it the smartest thing one could do?

My point is this...what may seem stupid to me may not seem stupid to you.

[hockeypuck]

jrc, who decides and who pays, is a real catch 22. When Weirs Guy has a few cold refreshing adult beverages and attempts to swim to the pier and disappears does the rescue team say, oh no that's more than 50 feet from shore and our free rescue service does not cover it so the cost will be $xxxx for us to continue or do they just bring in the helicopters, boats, side scan radar, divers etc and send a bill for $150,000 or do they just take reasonable action and chalk the cost up to all taxpayers? I don't know the answer.

[jrc]

I don't know either. But obviously the rescue should come first and the figuring out who pays should come later.

Some cases will be obvious one way or the other and some will be fuzzy. The definition of adventurous, dare-devil and reckless have a lot of overlap.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Glad to hear your friend made it out OK BI.
However, you talk about people getting themselves into hot water through their own stupidity. Now define stupidity. The reason I say that, is that some people may consider what Hannah did, to be stupid. Adventurous..absolutely. But is it the smartest thing one could do?

My point is this...what may seem stupid to me may not seem stupid to you.

I see your point, and there can be a rare borderline case. In most situations the answer is pretty black and white.

1. Did the members of the party have the appropriate clothing and equipment for the conditions they might experience.

2. Did at least one member of the party have training and experience in those conditions.

3. Were plans made in advance for dealing with injury, bad weather etc.

4. Did they bring communications?

When a group starts up Mount Washington without map, coats, cell phone or compass and they fail to turn around when the weather turns bad, then they are the idiots we speak of.

The other end of that spectrum is Hannah.

Consider also that Hannah made one mistake, the fall. Usually the idiots make a long string of them before rescue operations begin.

[chipj29]

I can def. agree with that. However in NH this season, there were at least 2 instances where the people were prepared, yet found themselves in trouble and needing help. Can't remember where I read it (Union Leader maybe), but one of those cases was cited as the reason there was a need to charge. I wish I had saved the link to that...

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by chipj29

..in NH this season, there were at least 2 instances where the people were prepared, yet found themselves in trouble and needing help. Can't remember where I read it (Union Leader maybe), but one of those cases was cited as the reason there was a need to charge...

But where does it stop then? I'm a pretty good driver, but I still had an accident this winter in a snow storm, should I pay for that? I think BI has some good points, maybe a committee of individuals like him could establish some guidelines? I think there needs to be some repercussions for Capt. Bonehead Hiker.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

But where does it stop then? I'm a pretty good driver, but I still had an accident this winter in a snow storm, should I pay for that? I think BI has some good points, maybe a committee of individuals like him could establish some guidelines? I think there needs to be some repercussions for Capt. Bonehead Hiker.

I completely agree. There should be some sort of guidelines. But, the line is kind of gray. You have to define "bonehead", and your definition may not be the same as mine.