Rescue Costs

[magikwalt]

I have been checking into the costs of rescues and who pays for what over the last month or so. Here a little of what I've found.

In California the individual counties will bill each other for rescues that have been made. If a person from Los Angeles is rescued in Riverside then the costs are billed to LA County.

Each County can then determine if they want to purse collecting from their resident. Usually they do not unless there is a clear illegal act (trespassing, lock cutting, arson or motor vehicle in a prohibited area) or outrageous irresponsibility.

Large rescue helos cost over $3,000 an hour. Deputies are billed at over $120 an hour. Once the call to 911 starts the billing gets started as well. The volunteer mountain rescue units are not billed for due to their volunteer status but all the other forces mobilized are.

I'm still trying to get more info from the County but anything to do with their specific numbers requires insiders to locate.

[5150Irish]

What I was told by the leader of an Outdoors Club (ODC) hike, while discussing a previous hike where a rescue took place:

The agencies have budgets for a certain number of rescues, and therefore no one was charged.

If this allotment has not been used for rescues, it must be used in training exercises.

[halhiker]

Every time we have someone rescued we tend to have a big debate about the costs. Guess what? Freedom has it's costs.

Are we going to start charging for all public services? When you need the police to assist you in any way: should you get a bill for that? When the fire department comes to put out a fire: should you get a bill for that? If your kid gets lost at a campground: should you get a bill for that?

The whole idea of billing people for hiking rescues to me seems like a foolish notion considering what the costs are in relation to other emergency services we bear on society. We also have to consider the ramifications of people waiting until it's too late to request rescue due to fear of being charged?

Charging for rescue is just as bad an idea as taking a group hike up skyline in July. It's trouble waiting to happen.

Hal

P.S. Tahoe is beautiful right now. And there are all kinds of banners thanking the firefighters for their efforts. Maybe we need to send a bill to those who lost homes charging them.

[magikwalt]

Well like I said the charges right now get sent back to the hiker's home county. Accountants call it charging the cost to the same place the income is from. Counties pay for most rescue operations so hence the county to county request for cash.

I think you are going to see more of it from counties that have recreational areas to offset the costs of people visiting from other counties. Here locally we have the "shovel" off road area north of I-10 but inside Cat City limits. Last year it was posted and closed after Cat City took a financial beating on rescues and a death with the mandatory investigation associated with folks from outside the area.

Imagine how fast C2C or almost any other recreation area supported by county rescue would get closed if the counties had no cost containment methods. When rescues start up there isn't anyone asking how much budget is left right now. Its not till the end of the year that the numbers get crunched and new policies get put in place to contain problem areas.

Just compare the locals to non-locals requiring rescue on the trail. I'll bet the same is true if us desert dudes took our surfboards out to Malibu. More of us being rescued than the locals. Probably because they are better prepared, know the area and are just plain better at the task.

[guest]

Well,
I don't think anyone wants to see someone seriously hurt, but let's not forget that many of the agencies have very limited budgets, and the money spent on taking people off a mountain that should should nor have been on in the first place could be spent on other important needs.

Also, every time someone throws caution to the wind & attempts to do a severe hike in severe conditions, they take those personnel away from duties they may be needed for, like people getting lost, injured, policing, fire etc.

The analogy of charging people who had their homes saved from a fire they didn't start, or even if one was started by accident, it a far cry from some foolish person attempting an 8k ft. climb in the summer in the sonoran desert.

ss

[halhiker]

The analogy does hold true for some; they would say that if you live in an area like Lake Tahoe or Idyllwild you should expect fires because the forest burns. YOU chose to live there. And about those rescues at the beach: should we charge for them? I grew up near Huntington and if it where up to the locals all inlanders would be allowed to drown.

I believe that rescuing those in need is a societal good. When a lost person is found, whether a hiker, boater or even a little kid at the mall it gives me joy. It also makes me proud that we as a society do not compound their trauma by charging them for their salvation.

[Hikin_Jim]

HH:

I kind of see both sides of the argument. Clearly, to my mind, if someone makes an honest mistake, then they absolutely should be bailed out. On the other hand, we do need to worry about public resources. I'm not sure what the proper balance is there. As a side note, one does normally have to pay for an emergency ambulance ride.

I think it's reasonable to do some mitigation -- like put up further information on the Skyline Route about the dangers and requirements. There are a few sensible people out there. A sign is pretty cheap compared to a chopper ride.

Hopefully, it won't get to a permit situation like up top or over in the SGW, but permits would be better than a full closure or something of that order.

With respect to fires, and again I don't know the full balance here, people do need to assume some personal responsibility for building in high fire damger areas. Classic case: the Malibu area. Severe fires sweep down those canyons. It happens almost as regularly as the phases of the moon. Should the more prudent subsidize the less? I think there is some balance to be had here. Please note that I would never advocate denying fire dept. services to anyone irrespective of wisdom or lack thereof.

Just some thoughts. All of life is a balance. Hopefully on Skyline we'll strike a good one.

[guest]

Jim,
Good point, a firefighter friend tells me when fighting wildfires in heavily wooded or brushy areas, if they come upon a house with little or no defensible area around it, they realize very quickly if they will be able to save it.
If it's hopeless, they move on to one that has been properly maintained. In this case, those who were negligent suffer the most. Maybe this is part of what Hal was referring to.

(PS, I'm the one who made the comments on outdoorclub under jerry swanson, along with yours).

ss

[Perry]

We also have to consider the ramifications of people waiting until it's too late to request rescue due to fear of being charged?

I agree. Also it's important to consider that the person who would call 911 might not be the person(s) in need of help, so if a leader chooses not to contact the ranger station or 911 because of fines, and he/she goes alone to attempt a search and rescue, it's possible that the victims would die as a result. It's even more significant if the victims are children, who are presumed to be less able to understand the risks involved in the wilderness. If the parent wants to avoid paying rescue fines, then the children are put at more risk.

[magikwalt]

Don't go shooting the mailman...I was just passing along the current way things are done between the counties. Here are some sites if anyone is interested in how its shaping up around the country. Its been an issue for long than this board has been around. Links to other news stories are below.

Here's California's Government Code Section:

26614.5. The county or city and county of residence of a person
searched for or rescued by the sheriff under the authority of Section
26614 shall pay to the county or city and county conducting such
search or rescue, in any case where the expenses thereof exceed one
hundred dollars ($100), all of the reasonable expenses in excess of
one hundred dollars ($100) of such search or rescue within 30 days
after the submission of a claim therefor by the county or city and
county conducting the search or rescue and the county or city and
county conducting the search or rescue shall bear the remaining
expense.


26615. The sheriff shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, a
directory of specially trained dogs or dog teams with proven ability
in search and rescue operations as one of the possible methods to be
used under the authority of Section 26614. The directory shall
include, but not be limited to, the location and previous experience
of such dog or dog teams.


http://www.traditionalmountaineering.or ... harges.htm


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/l ... 70,00.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/mountain-rescue