Who should pay for expensive Search and Rescues for risk taking adventurers?

CrusaderRabbit08 said:

It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.

Click to expand...

I think willfull negligence should be punished, but not normal everyday actions

A grease fire, burning your house down, no

Building a fire pit in your basement, that eventually burns your housedown yes

Getting lost or injured on a well known hiking trail, no

Getting lost in the deep wilds, where no one knows where you arse going in the middle of winter yes

CrusaderRabbit08 said:

It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.

Click to expand...

Punished?

No.

Just not something others should be expected to pay for.

And getting lost in the woods, getting hurt mountain climbing, skiing into a tree, is always, at the bottom, negligent.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:

On a related note; if someone's negligence causes their house to catch fire, shouldn't they be required to reimburse the city for fighting that fire?

Click to expand...

Shouldn't they be required to pay for the costs, anyway?

Is there some rule that if someone's property is damaged by their own incompetence they have to pay for it, but if they can show it's just that God hated them then someone else should have to pay for their lost property?

Where's the sense in that?

They lost property. Why should others lose property to cover them?

Lord Tammerlain said:

I think willfull negligence should be punished, but not normal everyday actions

A grease fire, burning your house down, no

Building a fire pit in your basement, that eventually burns your housedown yes

Getting lost or injured on a well known hiking trail, no

Getting lost in the deep wilds, where no one knows where you arse going in the middle of winter yes

Click to expand...

Let me add to this one. I know a fella who is a frequent back country hiker (as am I) who had to be rescued because while checking out the bottom of a waterfall, he slipped and fell into the deep fast rushing water, was swept downstream towards yet another large waterfall and had to be rescued from a boulder smack in the middle of the waterfall!

He survived, they did rescue him and he was mighty embarrassed. Afterward he went to court, and while the national park he was hiking in had public trails which alone offer their own hazards, he elected to ignore park policy and posted signage and go down to the bottom of this waterfall. Turns out the precise reason they don't want anyone down there is the rocks and path are covered in algae and slime year round, the water is deep and fast moving and people who go down there tend to end up slipping and falling into said river!

In the end he got a year probation and had to pay restitution as well as write a PSA about his experience. I've lost the link to the thing, but it is still out there on web somewhere. In his case, the lesson was learned.......at great expense.

I voted "There should be a case by case review based on the risk taker's level of responsibility" and I believe that is already the law being followed in most places.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:

SAR efforts are also covered by taxes.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't be. Motorists pay an "uninsured motorist fee", so hikers and mountaineers should pay an "uninsured damn jack ass fee".

People who do not climb mountains should not be forced to pay the rescue costs of people who do.

Can't get simpler than that.

Gina said:

I agree! Remember the last trio of lost hikers on Mt. Hood refused to take beacons? There should be no choice in the matter. Take a beacon or no hiking. Period!

They put rescuers in severe danger by expending time in making guesses as to where the hikers are stranded. It's ridiculous that they would put their own safety at further risk in refusing the beacons. They did pay the price and I'm sorry for their families.





Indeed, insurance is for this is a great idea. How badly does someone need to go climbing on mountains in the winter? If you want the privilege, then pay for it.




:thumbs:

Why is this not the case already?


Overall, I agree on a case by case assessment of the risk being undertaken and then charge them or not if they need rescued. Accidents happen, but as was said by someone in this thread, mountain climbing in winter is a choice and not an accident.

Click to expand...

It's called an "EPIRB".....
It is a must for any offshore boater who has at least two brain cells to rub together....

I think S&R costs should always be paid, to some degree, by the person being rescued, after all, they engaged in an activity that was risky, they deserve to pay for that risk. I don't think that charge should be huge, maybe a couple of hundred dollars for most cases. It's when people purposely do something downright dangerous, ignore posted warnings, etc. that they should be hit with the whole charge. Stupidity ought to be punished.

Does anyone actually have actually information on how much of the search and rescue costs are actually being paid with tax dollars?

I am a member of the Civil Air Patrol, and I donate my time and money voluntarily. The opportunity to fly on a life saving heroic mission is all the compensation I need.

I do agree that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to foot the bill.

Partisan said:

It's called an "EPIRB".....
It is a must for any offshore boater who has at least two brain cells to rub together....

Click to expand...

I give, what does EPIRB mean? I'm terrible at figuring out those things.

I'm sure it's some kind of insurance, but.....

I was a member of a rescue group. As such my opinion could be somewhat slanted. I have been in lifesaving efforts where it was the potential victims own fool hearty adventure that lead to the need for our service. I feel the person responsible (if it is clearly a situation where someone created the emergency) should participate to some degree with the cost of rescue but not to the extent that it would cripple his ability to recover financially or otherwise. BTW I was in the US Coast Guard air sea rescue unit in San Diego.

Reno J said:

I was a member of a rescue group. As such my opinion could be somewhat slanted. I have been in lifesaving efforts where it was the potential victims own fool hearty adventure that lead to the need for our service. I feel the person responsible (if it is clearly a situation where someone created the emergency) should participate to some degree with the cost of rescue but not to the extent that it would cripple his ability to recover financially or otherwise. BTW I was in the US Coast Guard air sea rescue unit in San Diego.

Click to expand...

You make a great point. Were such a policy implemented, that should be a consideration. Maybe fines are in order, large ones to be sure, but not so big that someone is bankrupted or unable to pay for their medical recuperation.

Gina said:

I give, what does EPIRB mean? I'm terrible at figuring out those things.

I'm sure it's some kind of insurance, but.....

Click to expand...

Emergency Positioning Indicating Radio Beacon............rof

Shep Smith reports the climber's body has been found.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

You tell your inssurer that your window got broken by some punk and see even after a police report will the insurer want to pay? Insurance is mostly false security.

Click to expand...

That's not the issue. If you want to do risky things you should pay for the costs associated with it or be insured for it. The public should not have to pay for your costly behavior.

Partisan said:

Emergency Positioning Indicating Radio Beacon............rof

Click to expand...

Thanks! Yes, boaters would be foolish to leave without one and people hiking off in the woods should have one too!