Rescue Costs

[cynthia23]

Although I agree with HH about many things, I'm very surprised by his point of view here. Many parks and other areas now charge for rescues. it has worked out very well. Deaths have not gone up; they go DOWN. Rescues decrease significantly when people understand they will have to pay for them--not because people won't call SAR in perilous situations (when you are sick, lost, or injured, you will, believe me.) but because, faced with a prospect of a huge charge, people don't even undertake hikes they aren't SURE they can complete. It's incredibly weird to me, but the prospect of a twenty thousand dollar loss will deter people when the prospect of death or injury won't. (!!!) People decide not to risk dangerous hikes once they understand they will have to pay for risky decisions. Also, I think being put on notice that rescues are frequent enough that the state no longer will pay for them, finally makes people pay attention when all our message board warnings don't. We are not talking about charging boy scouts who twist their ankles hiking to Round Valley. We are only discussing charging those who attempt inherently risky hikes or climbs. This is now becoming SOP in many areas, and I feel it should be implemented in regards to Skyline. We would see an immediate RIF-- Reduction In Foolishness.

[guest]

Hey Cynthia,
I have to agree, money seems to be a big motivator & actually gets people thinking hard about what they are considering doing. And this in turn can help save lives. They had to instigate this on several mountains in the US lately for some of the same reasons, plus the fact that there's certainly not an unlimited budget for SAR's groups these days.

And, it can free up the agencies to be available for the accidents that inevitably do happen.

ss

[zippetydude]

There was an interesting study done a number of years ago that might shed some light on that "bearing the cost of rescue" idea.

A program was working to figure out how to deter kids from drinking, and especially from drinking and driving. The produced two brief films.

In one, the police are shown at the scene of an accident, and the teen's parents arrive on the scene, only to find that their child has been killed. The parent's tearful reaction was depicted. When shown this version, the kids typically either joked or showed cynicism, but the effectiveness rating was very low.

In the other version, the scene opens the same, but in this version, the teenager is still alive, and sitting in a police car. The parents arrive, but they are not sad, they are angry. This version drew, "Ooooh!" and "Aw, man!" and similar sympathetic responses.

The reason for the difference was hypothesized to be that kids have never experienced dying, but they have experienced angry parents, so it was something they could grasp, something that made sense on a gut level.

I assume I am not being wildly optimistic if I say that no one on this board has ever died before, (at least not irrevocably). It is therefore possible that the abstract concept of death may perform more of a function of added thrill for some (no, not most of us, but for some otherwise normal, well-adjusted people.)

On the other hand, most of us have paid fines. Maybe I'm cheap, but I hate paying fines, even that little $1.00 fine for turning in a movie late drives me nuts. It is something we actively avoid.

For example, my brother recently did the Grand Canyon Rim to Rim to Rim run, and he said there were very clear signs that you will bear the cost of your own rescue. Although he was very well prepared and about as sure as a person can be that they will be able to complete the challenge (which he did quite handily), the signs still made an impression on him.

It seems such a thought hits home. Isn't that the goal? To get people to back up and think?

It sure beats permits and seasonal closures. Still, hal's point about people not calling when they might otherwise should, does give me pause - I think that's a legitimate concern.

z

[halhiker]

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

This is a pretty good article regarding some of the costs of rescue regarding mountain climbing specifically but a lot of the information is pertains to this discussion.

When you start charging for rescue where does one start and where does one stop? If my kid gets lost while hiking with friends should I expect a bill if some agency has to go out and find him? If a tourist at the Tram takes a wrong turn and ends up heading down the PCT and requires someone to get him, do they get charged? Or is it only someone participating in a "risky" outing that we charge? Of course, what's risky for you might be a walk in the park for me. I do things some might consider risky but I have been able to reduce the risk by increasing my skills and knowledge. So because I push my limits does that mean I should pay whereas dumbass who can't read a map doesn't?

Maybe it's my Baptist upbringing that makes me feel we should leave the flock to go out and find the one lost sheep, that we should welcome home the prodigal son and that we should go out to the wilderness to restore our souls (and maybe be tempted by the devil) but it's my American soul that makes me believe that wilderness should be free to explore.

If it is necessary to tell people you are on your own and we will NOT rescue you, I could accept that. If we were to tell people don't call us and if you mess up, you will die. Period. That's cool with me. But if we as a society deem it a worthy undertaking to try to rescue people who are lost, injured or in some other trouble than I think that WE, as a society, should be able to bear the costs.

And I would much rather have my taxes pay for that than for some of the other BS we spend them on.

Hal

[guest]

Hi,
I agree with both sides from Zip & Hal.

But, I think we need to realize that "cost" in many cases is more than monetary. Taking personnel away from their duties, risking their well being in difficult terrain & conditions, plus straining an already tight budget.

Yes, people need to be rescued when in dire straits. But if someone undertakes a very difficult trail in very harsh conditions, (and especially if they are ill-prepared, i.e. heat conditioning, fitness level, trail knowledge), this is entirely different than someone getting hurt or lost.

It can be tough to determine culpability in some cases. As you both mentioned, the more one knows of their consequences going into an endeavor, the less they may be likely to make a bad choice.

ss