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

Property is different from lives. With property it’s wise to question intent or the propriety of government ‘bail outs’. Example: building in flood / hurricane-prone areas such as the McMansions along the Carolina and Florida coastal areas, or building below sea level in places like New Orleans. Who in their right mind would build there, or write insurance on such properties? The government creates a moral hazard by providing insurance – our tax dollars are used foolishly to support behavior no rational person would undertake on their own. Likewise, if someone over-insures a property and then it burns to the ground: you have to question motivations in such cases.

Ken’s Sea Tow example is a perfect example of the right course of action.

Lives are a different story. Would someone knowingly put his / her life at risk? Where’s the upside? Lives are not property and motivations and intent are irrelevant. What do I gain having my frozen, battered body brought home for free?

There is a government policy called "1999 US National Search and Rescue Plan"

One of the sections is copied below.

When they refer to "Participants" they mean the rescue agencies such as the National Park Service and others.

"CHARGING FOR SAR SERVICES

47. Each Participant will fund its own activities in relation to this Plan unless otherwise arranged by the Participants in advance, and will not allow a matter of reimbursement of cost among themselves to delay response to any person in danger or distress.

48. The Participants agree that SAR services that they provide to persons in danger or distress will be without subsequent cost-recovery from the person(s) assisted.

49. In accordance with customary international law, when one nation requests help from another nation to assist a person(s) in danger or distress, if such help is provided, it will be done voluntarily, and the U.S. will neither request nor pay reimbursement of cost for such assistance."

I believe this policy is legally binding on the participants.

It is an interesting document and a link to it is here.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/nsp.htm#PRINCIPLES

Asbufra: Up here the US and Canadians do assist each other in the joint waters and where necessary.

Speaking of Canadians, I believe that they do charge for rescue in the mountains. At least, they did at one time. I don't know about their sea rescues.

Edit: This just was posted on local TV site:

" SEATTLE - Crews from both the U.S. Coast Guard and Canada's Coast Guard worked together to rescue the crew of a sinking fishing boat 22 miles southwest of Cape Flattery, Washington.

Officials say the 58-foot vessel Oak Bay was carrying four men on board when it began taking on water at approximately 10 a.m. Friday.

A Canadian search craft and an American helicopter responded to the scene. Crews dropped pumps down to the Oak Bay from the air, but the pumps could not keep up with the flooding.

Coast Guard crews then went to meet the Oak Bay in a motor lifeboat, and got the flooding under control.

None of the crew members were hurt.

The Coast Guard Boat is now escorting the vessel back to Neah Bay, its home port.

The Oak Bay is a 58-foot wooden long liner built in 1944.
"

I was at GCNP this past November and there were multiple signs stating you will charged for your rescue.

Could there have been a revision to this plan?

wbtravis5152, when I did the Kaibab-Bright Angel trails with my daughter in Grand Canyon, I recall seeing signs stating if you don't bring enough water, you WILL DIE, besides the signs saying you pay for your rescue... Well, maybe the signs said "could die"? Regardless, the signage in Grand Canyon is quite intimidating, as I think the signs need to be. Going down into that beautiful canyon is so easy and so tempting...

wbtravis5152
I have no answer to your question. I posted the information because I thought it was helpful and emphasized the humanitarian aspect.
If you want my guess the Grand Canyon uses the signs to deter inexperienced hikers from walking so far down the hill that they cant make it back up, and if anybody is charged it is for private services such as ambulance, helicopter or even those mules.
At one time I was told that helicopter rescues in the Whitney Drainage were billed to those rescued. That was never actually done. Perhaps Grand Canyon is similar.

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

That's how i feel about W's little hobby in Iraq. Fortunately (though in the case of Iraq i find it unfortunate), we live in a compassionate society where we choose to pay for all sorts of things that don't benefit each of us directly. I pay for public schools despite having no children. I pay for military i disagree with, foreign aid that i'll never see direct benefit from, and a host of subsidies that make me cringe. And yet i'm NOT spouting "The Constitution says..." or "Why should i have to pay for something i don't get?"

It would be nice if we could get pass the hysterical crap, and just realize that on a case-by-case basis, we (our government) have to decide what is worth spending money on for our greater good and what is not. For me it's a no-brainer that it's worth 1 cent of my annual taxes(or whatever it comes out to be, per person) to fund rescuing people in mountains, which i climb in. Or from the ocean, which i do NOT swim in. It makes us a better country, and it's worth this money. To some people, they may feel that it's not worth that (very small amount of) money. Ok, that's fine too. Vote, and aggressively pester your representatives. But don't get all indignant at people who get benefits that you don't. You'll end up indignant at the whole country, including yourself.

I can see charging someone who does something stupid and gets in over their head. But, who defines what that point is. Is a person who's only "mountaineering" experience is the main trail on Whitney doing something stupid if they get hurt climbing the ledges on the Mountaineers Route?

For places such as Whitney I would like to some combination of experience above 12,000 ft. and/or a training requirement to obtain a permit. I believe this would cut down on the number of rescues and most likely help the environment as well.

Hi all, 1st post on this board. I've been reading posts here for close to a year and with all of your help (without any of you knowing it) ya'll took a 44 yr old guy who hadn't slept over night in a sleeping bag in 20 years to the top of Whitney. Did a 2 dayer. spent mon night july 16, at trail camp in the rain, summitted tuesday at 10 am ish in a driving hail storm (no lightning or thunder)... You all got me in great shape and altitude prepared for my 2 day adventure. Thanking all of you is long overdue for me, but this thread is why I regestered to post here.

I havn't read a post yet on this subject that is right yet. You all seem to have been hugging too many trees. Our hospitals are not free, U pay. Our ambulances are not free, U pay. Grocery stores are not free, U pay. Our search and rescue is not free. The only debate should be, are you reasonably entitled to expect to be rescued. Whereby money is spent on you (that most of you seem to think you're not responsible for) and people risk their lives for you.

Yes people are entitled to a reasonable rescue attempt. There shouldn't be a measure of ability to pay before attempting rescue.

It is obvious to me that any such rescue on my behalf is my responsibility to repay wether I twist a knee in August or Snow camp in January. Those issues are irrelivant. Who is getting a service here. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD IT EVER BE FREE?

Because a particular type rescue MAY or MAY NOT be free (like ocean rescue-lifeguard) doesn't make another free.

I got an idea, buy insurance, yeah car, health, life and umbrella (for some thing like this) too..

Be an adult. Be responsible (financially) for yourself. Don't expect others to pay for you.

OK, Eddy. Just make sure you reimburse the fire department if your house ever burns. Make sure you reimburse the police department if it ever investigates an accident or break-in at your house. You should be responsible for preventing fires, break-ins, and accidents. To paraphrase you, it is obvious to me that any such effort on your behalf is your responsibility to repay. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD IT EVER BE FREE?

OK, I am being a wise guy, but you oversimplified things. There are many taxpater-supported services that are, by definition, not free but are nevertheless delivered without charge.

I understand that mountain rescue is debateable, which is why I have found this thread interesting. It does not seem to me to be nearly as clear as you claim.

I found it quite interesting that no one has mentioned the most recent rescue attempt of the Newport Beach sailor off the coast of South America. While the fishing boat that eventually got to him first lost ~$50,000/day (I think that was the figure I read in the LA Times; maybe that's one too many 0's), and they lost the load they were then currently carrying due to spoilage, the article emphasized that they will not be reimbursed. I haven't heard if there is any expectation that the sailor will be expected to pay something for his rescue.

It's just not an easy subject, period. I would simply hope that someone who is able to help would be willing without question. You can't put a price on human life.

-Laura

Eddy:

"It is obvious to me that any such rescue on my behalf is my responsibility to repay wether I twist a knee in August or Snow camp in January. Those issues are irrelivant. Who is getting a service here." "Be an adult. Be responsible (financially) for yourself. Don't expect others to pay for you."

This doesnt make much sense as you seem to forget that if we are talking about a rescue being covered partially or entirely by means of tax dollars - those dollars go to cover YOU AS WELL.
If you pay taxes you ARE being financially responsible for yourself should you need to be resuced, if there have been dollars allocated by the government for such.

Why would you "repay" the local, state or government back for a service you have already paid for?? We all pitch in, some may need it some may not.

And I am not entirely certain that groceries really have anything to do with search and rescue.

We obviously need to visit our views of taxation, services, role of government in our lives. The more we can expect from government, the less we can hope to be free to explore these places... To me it is exactly like an ambulance ride or a hospital visit. Does a hospital bill become optional when it is county hospital (tax supported)? When a county run ambulance gives you a ride or a private contractor ambulance (hired by the county when you call 911) does, either way, you pay. Un-paid bills get paid by us. To say that our tax dollars pay for it is wrong. Tax dollars are at best a security blanket for the un-able. Not a way for able bodied capable Americans to make somebody else pay for them.

Eddy,

You say that "Tax dollars are at best a security blanket for the un-able. Not a way for able bodied capable Americans to make somebody else pay for them."

That's transparently wrong. If it were true, you would have to pay when the police or fire department saves your house or your life. That was the point of my earlier post. There are many services to able bodied people that are covered by tax dollars and for which the government is not reimbursed.

Ok ok... lets cool this argument down a bit. Once you have stated an opinion, repeating yourself is wasting everyone's time.

I didn't mean to get things heated up. It does sometimes pay to reiterate a point when it gets ignored. I'd be happy to remove my "transparently wrong" comment, since it is transparently inflammatory. At the moment, however, I don't seem to be able to edit my post.

Eddy -- welcome to the board and I'm glad you enjoyed your first Whitney outing. No offense intended. I don't want to see my tax dollars wasted and am all for individual responsibility, but I continue to think that the topic at hand is more complicated than you were making it sound.

Thanks for straightening this out Eddy, I was wondering what the *truth* was. There is a large gray area with this one--if it were that simple this thread wouldn't exist--because realistically most of us are not going to need this service.

You never answered Alan's question about paying the fire department if your house catches fire??? The fire department is a government agency, just like the sheriff's office which heads search and rescue (SAR) on the east side of Whitney. If the police write up a traffic accident---do they bill the public? Does the Fire Department bill us? Every summer tourists come to the beach and get caught in a rip current, and the life guard is there to intervene. It's called civilized society--these are the types of services our tax dollars were meant for (we could start a long list about how the government pisses away tax dollars). Tourism based counties (like Inyo county where Whitney is) probably accept this responsibility with less reticence than some since its what keeps the lights on. Compare Lone Pine with Independence and Big Pine (just up the road) which don't have a Mt. Whitney at their headwaters--not near as much tourist business.

I doubt anyone here is directly passing the buck (shucking personal responsibility). We should do a Poll and see how many people have used SAR. It came up in an earlier post or thread that some counties do charge and it is a county by county decision. People donate their own time and expertise to help others that hit some bad luck (sure some people dig their own hole, but it isn't malicious). I would rather pull an Aron Ralston or crawl out on bloody knees than get rescued, but a serious accident can happen to anyone (lightning hit a boyscout troop killing a leader and a 13 yr. old in 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8757108/--different agency involved because it happened in the Park, but similar idea). When rescues occur they are usually "time is of the essence" situations and that would be the realistic time to ask for an insurance card or a VISA number if the victim was truly to be held accountable for the cost of SAR. The cost of a rescue is easily thousands (2,5,10...) and realistically this could be too large a burden for most (just like if you had to pay the fire department to extinguish a fire for you or pay the police who returned stolen property to you), but if it's incorporated into the tax, we all pitch in a few bucks and its done. No big deal. This doesn't seem wrong to me nor an excessive burden.

There was a study cited on the first page of this thread, which brings up a lot of issues with this subject. Welcome to the board and Good Luck, John

Suppose someone puts himself in a life-threatening situation and is rescued at a large cost. Then he goes back and does the same thing and there's the same costly rescue. And then again, and again. What should be done in a situation like that?

The reason the above came to mind was that I saw a story on tonight's TV news about the sailor mentioned in Laura's message and he said he's going to try it again after one of the officials down in the country that rescued him asked him not too. I suspect the guy isn't going to pay a Chilean peso for his rescue.

Personally, I don't have a clear position on the general issue, possibly because there doesn't seem to be a fair policy that would apply to all cases, but from what I've seen, that sailor seems selfish.

The sailor's recent rescue off of the Chilean coast will be picked up by the us the tax paying public. The Chilean government will be sending the US government a bill for $250,000.

It's hard to argue 'ill intent' on the part of any rescuee, since no one ever has enough knowledge or foresight, whether expert or novice.

There are no misplaced incentives provided from a 'free rescue'...that doesn't make sense, either.

HikerL. is right, too, on a purely altruistic level.

But Eddy's argument, on a pure economic basis, does raise an interesting question. Who does pay? Doug Sr.'s post on the recharging of the aquifer bring to light a sparce population in a relatively 'undeveloped' county, in a high-tax state, having to bear the burden. There is no free lunch (thank you, Prof. Freidman). Should the county bear all the cost?