Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Rescue - Who Pays?

I just finished reading some various posts regarding who pays for mountaineering rescues and wanted to offer my thoughts on the topic. Please post your thoughts on this topic.

My wife was a LA County and Huntington Beach lifeguard for a number of years. The county and cities all along the coast spend countless dollars on making sure the beach is safe for everyone. One summer I went to work with her everyday and surfed/slept/watched. In addition, she has told me numerous rescue stories. She has rescued people from all walks of life. People prepared for the ocean and its challenges and people who aren't. People with an enormous pool of experience and people who have never seen the ocean. 90% of the time the rescues involved people that were in poor shape and had little ocean experience. 10% of the time the rescues involved surfers, experienced swimmers, triathletes, and scuba divers.

I think that the ocean and the mountains have similar allure and risk. Additionally, I have read and believe that the majority of mountain rescue dollars are spent rescuing people with little or no experience/fitness - similar to ocean rescues.

If people are going to be charged for being rescued on the mountain, then there should be charges for all types of other rescues. Get caught in a rip at the beach - you pay. Hit some ice while driving your car and get into an accident - you pay. Have a heart attack partly due to your life of overindulgence and require emergency medical assistance - you pay. This list can go on and on, but they all have one thing in common: the problems were all foreseeable. I don't think this is a road we want to go down. There are bigger fish to fry if you are looking to save tax dollars.

This article about the Mt. Hood rescue...from the LA times.... Fallacies of the mountain... is interesting to those wondering who pays.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rescue27dec27,1,759121.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Thanks for the link. Definitely interesting commentary.

As for the ELB/PLB, I haven't seen the cost of the device drop in all the years that I've been looking into purchasing one. I think that keeping the cost up in the $600 range keeps it from getting out to the masses, and that may be a good idea...

Way to put it mnelson. Why is this an issue now? Let's put this to rest and make it a NON ISSUE, it really doesn't deserve the time of day.

As a climber, no matter how experienced or inexperienced, I have the same right to be rescued on the mountain as I would if I was drowning in the ocean - at no cost to me.

No one has the *right* to be rescued and the public has every right to charge for these rescues, if through their elective representatives they choose to enact and enforce these laws.

The question is, are these fee for rescue laws an impediment to get help to those lost or injured? My guess is no, since most everyone is going to what is in their best interest. I have yet to conclusive evidence that fee for rescue has delayed authorities being contacted.

I have been an advocate of rescue insurance being a part of the permitting process, that being you are given the option of paying into a pool that is used exclusively for rescue in a geographic area. If you choose not to pay and have to be rescued you pay.

I, also, think the forest service and park service should investigate renting PLB to climbing parties in the winter months.

I must have missed the section of the constitution where it guarantees everyone the right to free rescue anywhere/any time. As a matter of precedent, you can point to both: there are many cases where rescues are free as well as many where the person rescued has to pay. If you climb an erupting volcano with clearly posted signs saying that the area is closed and require rescue, should we have to pay for your foolishness?

Climbing an erupting volcano with clearly posted signs saying that the area is closed, is in a completely different league than what we are talking about here today.

Clearly I have misspoken. What I meant to say was I feel I should have the same right to be rescued on the mountain, in much the same way I would be rescued in the ocean at no cost to me if I were drowning.

Obviously agreeing with mnelson's "If people are going to be charged for being rescued on the mountain, then there should be charges for all types of other rescues. Get caught in a rip at the beach - you pay."

No need to bring up the Constitution and what not, obviously just stating my personal view on the subject, which is what I believe this site is for.

HCP, while I agree that it is different, in the many discussions I've seen on this issue, it is actually the crux of the issue, every time: most everyone agrees that for people going about their ordinary business, rescue should exist, and be free. A significant percentage of people feel that if people are doing outrageous things, they should be rescued (if feasible), for a charge.

What it ALWAYS comes down to, in the debates, is
"what is outrageous"?

To many, many people, winter mountaineering is outrageous.

"Outrageous" ends up being so hard to define, that every discussion I've ever seen, ends up without an endpoint, because people cannot agree on this point. As people try to define it, it gets so narrow, as to exclude most everything....and it ends up with the outrageous being such a small percentage, as to not be worth the bother and expense to set up the process, for the tiny amount of money. (many of the folks have little in the way of assets)

Personally, I am very much in favor of a system such as the one suggested by wbtravis, as long as the fee isn't stratospheric. I'm also in complete agreement with Ken about opening the "Outrageous / Allowable" can of worms. In my view, there is no objective and fair line of demarcation there. An inescapable truth of mountaineering - especially in winter - is that even the most competent of us is just one small lapse in judgement or attention away from needing to be rescued. And many of us are not in the financial position to afford to pay the entire cost of it.

Yes Ken, I agree it is very difficult to define what exactly is outrageous, as outrageous means different things to different people.

I personally do not consider winter mountaineering to be outrageous, I believe it can be dangerous at times, however not outrageous, as there are enough people out there every year (most of whom are experienced, although of course some who are not) and therefore should a rescue become necessary for whatever reason, I feel those parties/groups/persons warrant a free rescue.

If a party goes out who is relatively inexperienced and requires a rescue, ok yes we can say they were "foolish" in doing so, and maybe even should have known better, thought it through better, whatever, but they also warrant a free rescue, as I'm sure the idea for the day was not to be rescued, but to spend some quality time in a quality place.

When I asked a person about the recent Mt Hood accident, he stated "Why should I pay for someone’s hobby."

"There are bigger fish to fry if you are looking to save tax dollars." - mnelson

The "bigger fish" is out of reach of ordinary person, however.

When you consider the amount of money the government spends on things like roads, or military expenses or even fighting forest fires.....they really don't spend that much on rescues.

We don't seem to be bothered by someone breaking a leg up on Mt. Whitney and being airlifted off.....but if someone, through a combination of changing weather, bad luck or even poor judgement needs help...we wince at the cost.

It seems to me the cost of rescue is not really that much when compared to other things our money is being spend on.

Here is a link to an interesting article by the American Alpine Club titled "Rescue Cost Recovery - Denali National Park and Preserve". Danali has been struggling with this issue for decades.

http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/MRcost.pdf

Here are some exerpts:

-Between 1993-1998 SAR costs as a percent of total National Park Services costs have decreased from 0.20% - 0.15%.
-During the same time period search and rescue costs remain at less than 1.5¢ per NPS visitor while total cost has increased to over $6.00 per visitor.
-Breakdown of NPS SAR costs per activity in 1998: 29% - swimming, hiking - 17%, boating - 9%, 2.9% - climbing.
-One successful lawsuit for not rescuing a climber who has paid a rescue fee could easily wipe out years of cost savings from rescue cost recovery efforts.
-The AAC fears that implementation of a rescue cost recovery program would dramatically increase the number, cost, and risk of rescue operations because some people might feel entitled, even when not absolutely necessary, to cash in on services they felt they had paid for.

Re: "Between 1993-1998 SAR costs as a percent of total National Park Services costs have decreased from 0.20% - 0.15%."

I was curious why there was this percentage reduction in SAR costs so I looked at the above mentioned report [Ref] by Charley Shimanski, Executive Director, The American Alpine Club.

Looking at the chart on p. 14, "National Park ServiceTotal Cost per Visitor vs.SAR Cost per Visitor" we see that there was a spike in SAR costs per visitor in the year 1993. By choosing 1993 for the start of the comparison range, the author Shimanski apparently misrepresented the data. In other words, the comment that "SAR costs as a percent of total National Park Services costs have decreased from 0.20% - 0.15%" is misleading. There is a more meaningful trend of SAR costs from 1994-1998 which is about the same as the trend of total NPS costs.

So the SAR cost isn't getting better or worse compared to total NPS costs.

I don't see any reason why the author chose 1993 as the start of his comparison range other than to give a biased representation. I hope I'm wrong and that someone can give a good reason why he chose 1993. Otherwise, I would be careful reading the report because there may be other misrepresentations.

mrcs: "When I asked a person about the recent Mt Hood accident, he stated "Why should I pay for someone’s hobby.""

How so very sad.

I'll tell you what, I am thankful there are rescue attempts, one day I might need one - and would certainly appreciate not being charged for it. The same can be said for everyone on the board and beyond - one day you might need one, and I am fairly confident you would also appreciate not being charged for it. I imagine the experience as such is harrowing enough in and of itself, never mind having to worry about getting the bill in the mail a couple of weeks later.

Furthermore, to the person who made the "hobby" comment, he or she can rest assured that whatever in life they choose as a hobby, if for some reason they may ever need tax dollars to somehow alleviate a situation, I am a hard working American who is happy to help pay to alleviate the situation - whatever that may be.

Part of this discussion revolves around the issue of how you view government dollars. It is easy to say that it's ok to spend a few tax dollars to rescue someone even if they do something as boneheaded as climbing an erupting volcano because we can't figure out where to draw the line. However, there are always tradeoffs. As much as governement spending can often seem to be drawn from an infinite pool, in fact it is not. Every dollar spent on one thing is a dollar not spent on something else. So dollars spent on search and rescue are dollars not spent on some other government service. Now you can play all kinds of games with those trade-offs, like did those SAR dollars cost

- a military vehicle armor that could have saved soldiers lives?

- Helicoptor medevac for a child that could have saved him or her?

- etc.

- OR -

- did it just cost us a pile of bureaucratic paper that we are happy to be without.

Unless we want to see continued increases in government spending, however, someone needs to make the tough decisions and draw the line somewhere.

I attended an Access Fund Climber's Rendezvous in 1993 held in Joshua Tree. The main subject of the event was who was going to pay for rescue costs and was attended by the backcountry rangers who write these policies for both Denali and Yosemite NPs. This may explain the 1993 reference date for SAR cost data.
At the time it was stated that the general public, (read taxpayer), felt that climbing was such a high risk activity that all climbers should pay for their own rescue. The facts showed that the highest rescue costs were associated with the US Coast Guard. More money was also spent looking for lost hikers.
Denali had a special problem in that most of the rescues on McKinley involved foreign climbers.
Solutions to these issues were slim; charge everyone for rescue no matter what the activity, start an insurance fund, (the AAC already has this for its members), and others we do not want to hear such as closing areas.
The one thing everyone agreed on was that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and not explicitly rely on others for their rescue. Would a party continue on in the face of potential servere conditions if they knew that they were 100% on their own?

Fascinating. As some may know, I teach sailing in Los Angeles. In the marina, we have THREE governmental agencies that do SAR: County Lifeguards (A division of the Fire Dept), County Sheriff, US Coast Guard. All have multiple boats, all have several staff 24-7, all are highly trained, all are paid. It must be an enormous expense, day-in, day-out. In addition, there are commercial "rescue" organizations: Sea Tow, for example.

If, for example, your engine dies, and you call on the radio for help, the Coast Guard contacts Sea Tow for you, then come out and tow you in, for a charge.

The news report cited came out of Seattle. This discussion occurs each time there is a rescue. Both local papers have had editorials in the past.

Most of the volunteer Mt rescue folks do NOT want a charge. They fear that it could delay rescue or multiply the negatives - inexperienced friends now attempt a rescue in bad terrain and get themselves into trouble.

The US helicopters generally charge the costs off to training missions - they need a certain amount of flight time anyway and they need to practice in sometimes harrowing situations.

About a week before the Hood experience, a snowshoer got separated from her friends in the Cascades off I-90. Two nights out in the wilderness unprepared ended successfully when she was spotted by a helicopter . Good flying weather led to her rescue and lots of volunteers and she was NOT a climber.

A good friend is in Seattle Mt Rescue and is opposed to all government spending (g) but is opposed to charging for rescues.

And, yes, up this way, the Coast Guard does a lot of boat rescues, too, but their copters are used in a lot of mt rescues, as are national guard units.