• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Who should pay for these search and rescues?

  • The State should provide this service for anyone in distress

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • There should be a case by case review based on the risk taker's level of responsiblity

    Votes: 10 34.5%
  • The risk taker should pay on a sliding scale, depending on his income

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • If you risk your life and an expensive rescue ensues, it should be 100% your responsibility

    Votes: 9 31.0%
  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Total voters
    29

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So, a guy goes up Mt St Helens in the middle of winter, goes to the edge of the crater which authorities advise against, an unstable cornice gives way, and he falls. Now an expensive rescue attempt has ensued.

You see this all the time, these outdoor adventurers running into trouble in their ill advised risk taking activities, and the State racks up tens of thousands in expenses in rescue attempts. Washington State is in a big budget crisis now, cutting services right and left. So, who should pay for this rescue?



Search Resumes for Climber on Mount St. Helens - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Authorities in Washington state plan to resume rescue efforts Tuesday for a climber who fell into the crater at Mount St. Helens.

Skamania County undersheriff David Cox said the rescue effort was suspended Monday evening when high winds made footing unstable for search personnel.

One rescuer reached the floor of the volcano's crater, but had to abandon efforts to find the 50-year-old man because strong downdrafts were dislodging rocks, Cox said.

"There are always overhanging cornices of snow this time of year, and unless you look carefully, you may not notice that there is nothing but air beneath you," said Rocky Henderson of Portland Mountain Rescue in Oregon, who has climbed to the rim several times.

Rescue efforts began when a 911 cell phone call was received early Monday afternoon, sheriff's officials said. The caller told dispatchers that the climber was approximately 5 feet from the crater's edge when a snow cornice collapsed.
 
This sort of stuff happens out here all the time. Usually, though, it's idiots who get stuck or lost up on Mt. Hood (Oregon).

Nevertheless, I've always felt that the state (any state) shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of climbers. Climbers know they are taking risks, so the cost of those risks should be theirs to bear. The fact that my tax dollars are being wasted pisses me off even more, but the bottom line is:

You places your bets and you takes your chances. No one else should have to cover your crappy bets when you lose.
 
So, who should pay for this rescue?

In this instance, the victim should pay. He was warned to stay back from the rim and didn't. His failure to heed official warnings caused this accident.

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?
 
In this instance, the victim should pay. He was warned to stay back from the rim and didn't. His failure to heed official warnings caused this accident.

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?

You make a point there.
 
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?

Ehhh.... I'm not sure.

City and state taxes cover fire fighting costs, don't they? So local governments have already planned for those "expected" costs and have budgeted to cover them.

Maybe on a case-by-case basis?

Was someone making incendiary devices in his basement and the place blew up? Did he torch the place intentionally? Then hell yeah, he should pay. But I don't really think the guy whose toaster cord shorted out and caught his kitchen on fire should be charged extra.

Regardless, any fool who intentionally undertakes a dangerous sport shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for his blunders.
 
Last edited:
You make a point there.

No, it's a crappy point....
Accidents happen in the home all the time, & one pays for fire department services through his local taxes.....;)
Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident....:roll:
I say send a volunteer search party in the spring......
Or, how about a $100,000. non refundable fee for search & rescue, BEFORE you are alowed up?.......;)
Of course you can deny coverage, at your own risk......:2wave:
 
No, it's a crappy point....
Accidents happen in the home all the time, & one pays for fire department services through his local taxes.....;)
Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident....:roll:
I say send a volunteer search party in the spring......
Or, how about a $100,000. non refundable fee for search & rescue, BEFORE you are alowed up?.......;)
Of course you can deny coverage, at your own risk......:2wave:

I can agree with this. :)

There's also the issue about insisting that climbers carry rescue beacon thingies (some sort of GPS unit that can send out a distress signal with an exact location), so emergency services people can find them quickly when they get lost. When they end up searching for days because some a-hole didn't want to carry an extra 3 ounces of weight... well, screw 'im.

I say such devices should be mandatory (and the climbers should STILL have to cover the rescue costs).
 
It should be If you risk your life and an expensive rescue ensues, it should be 100% your responsibility.I am so sick and tire hearing about morons who go hiking,stays behind when a flood is occurring or some other disaster or life threatening situation and then tax payers have to foot the the bill to go save their ass. This is as bad as soldiers and marines having to risk their asses to baby sit reporters in war zones or having to risk their assess to go save some reporter who got captured by the enemy. I think there should be a proceed at your own risk clause where no one comes and saves your ass because you did something stupid.
 
No, it's a crappy point....
Accidents happen in the home all the time, & one pays for fire department services through his local taxes.....;)
Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident....:roll:
I say send a volunteer search party in the spring......
Or, how about a $100,000. non refundable fee for search & rescue, BEFORE you are alowed up?.......;)
Of course you can deny coverage, at your own risk......:2wave:

Do you understand the concept of negligence?
 
Ehhh.... I'm not sure.

City and state taxes cover fire fighting costs, don't they? So local governments have already planned for those "expected" costs and have budgeted to cover them.

SAR efforts are also covered by taxes.
 
Do you understand the concept of negligence?

Sure I do, but you ar comparing apples & oranges here....;)
What part of fire services being part of my taxes don't you get?....
Let's call it 'pre paid insurance', it wouldn't exist without my tax dollars in the first place....:doh
 
Sure I do, but you ar comparing apples & oranges here....;)
What part of fire services being part of my taxesdon't you get?....
Let's call it 'pre paid insurance', it wouldn't exist without my tax dollars in the first place....:doh

SAR is also part of your taxes.
 
if they're a citizen of they country they're in, the state should pay, if they're a tourist, bugger 'em and let 'em pay through the nose
 
SAR efforts are also covered by taxes.

That is the point of this thread....
They shouldn't be, especially when you make a concious decision to engage in risky behavior.....
Go tell your life insurance agent that you took up sky diving & rock climbing & see what happens.....:roll:
 
That is the point of this thread....
They shouldn't be, especially when you make a concious decision to engage in risky behavior.....
Go tell your life insurance agent that you took up sky diving & rock climbing & see what happens.....:roll:

Placing cardboard boxes too close to a space heater is just as negligent as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano. In both instances, rescue efforts were undertaken because of their carelessness and in both instances, these individuals should be required to reimburse the taxpayers.
 
I just took a look at Washington state's Emergency Management webpage, which includes the SAR program.

The state clearly developed its SAR program primarily for natural disasters (floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc). I was unable to find anything about non-natural disaster type SAR efforts, like rescuing ignorant extreme sports nuts (but I've got somewhere to go and don't have time to look much deeper).

It appears that a lot of federal money goes into the program, in addition to state and local taxes. Additionally, there is a huge number of volunteers who work gratis for this program.
 
You tell your insurer what you plan to do and they decide your premium for it.
 
Come on people

**** happens, if a mountain climber needs the help than he should get it. You are aware that if a boat gets lost in the ocean or is about to sink and they need rescue they can just press a button so the coast guard goes looking for them? The government is meant to rescue people no exceptions. If not where are all the heros going to do for work?
 
Hiking on a well known trail getting lost and or injured the SAR bill should not be sent to the rescued

climbing a mountain or hiking into the unknown then the bill should be sent to the rescued
 
You tell your insurer what you plan to do and they decide your premium for it.

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.
 
Placing cardboard boxes too close to a space heater is just as negligent as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano. In both instances, rescue efforts were undertaken because of their carelessness and in both instances, these individuals should be required to reimburse the taxpayers.

Again, your comparison is flawed, unless you are advocating 'Paygo'......
If I can opt out of the service & not pay for it, fine......
But the fact is that fire services benefit general public safety, the mountantop SAR scenario does not........
Your postion is as untenable as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano, I suggest you withdraw to a safer footing......:lol:
 
Placing cardboard boxes too close to a space heater is just as negligent as stepping too close to the edge of a volcano.

Yes, but Partisan makes a great point: Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident. Putting a cardboard box too close to a heater is most likely an accident, and not intentional at all.

In both instances, rescue efforts were undertaken because of their carelessness and in both instances, these individuals should be required to reimburse the taxpayers.

I disagree. I think climbers carry an extra burden, in that they have intentionally set out to do something dangerous, while putting something a bit too close to a heater can't really be considered an intentional act.

In addition, putting out a house fire is generally a pretty basic thing, while using important emergency equipment and sending hundreds of people and animals out to risk their lives in bad weather in dangerous localities to try to locate some fool who intentionally climbed a mountain and got lost, is not.
 
Yes, but Partisan makes a great point: Climbing to the top of a mountain in the winter is no accident. Putting a cardboard box too close to a heater is most likely an accident, and not intentional at all.

It's negligence; and negligence should be punished.
 
The people being rescued, of course.

Or their families, if they want to see the bodies again.

What the hell, may as well let them pay for the inexpensive S&R's, too.

There is this strange idea called "insurance", where people who want to climb, etc, pay a fee for the permit, which would then cover them if they need strangers to haul their ass out. Works for cars, works for boats, works for houses, would work for people who insist on putting themselves in situations they can't handle.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom