I enjoy going out on my own and wouldn't want to make my neighbors pay when they rarely make it out of Anchorage.

might as well make people pay to have the cops come, or the fire dept. take free parking off the board, make everyone pay for everything, perfect capitalism, and leave no dollar uncollected.

But the Mat-Su -- which charges for ... responses to motor-vehicle accidents

That's a rather odd quote.

What is the Mat-Su?

Plenty of people encounter risky situations just living life in the Valley. Big as West Virginia, the Mat-Su boasts three mountain ranges, three major river systems and sprawling stretches of tundra and forest to get lost in.

might as well make people pay to have the cops come, or the fire dept. take free parking off the board, make everyone pay for everything, perfect capitalism, and leave no dollar uncollected.

Hate to break it to you but you do already pay for the police, fire department, and free parking in town . . . taxes anyone?

To me being charged for a rescue is no different than being charged for an ambulance ride to the E.R. Both cost money and you as the client should have to pay for a part, if not all of it.

The difference is that as it currently stands in the US, most rescue groups are publicly funded services whereas EMS outfits are privately run. Therefore, you would naturally have to pay for that ambulance ride because it's a private business and not tax-supported.

Actually it's more like some rescue groups are partially supported by public tax dollars.

It's a borough. Don't know if that corresponds to a county in other states, or what, but [..]

Rescue operations must be supported by income from indirect sources. Charging an upfront rate acts as a deterrent to use the services which almost certainly will result in an increase in fatalities after the fact. When people know they will have to pay part of their next 30 paychecks for someone to come get them they will not call a SAR team until the situation reaches a critical stage. By the time the team gets there the client may already be dead and if the client is not, the rescue will certainly be much more difficult. But when it comes to rescuing stuck ATV’s and the related, that’s a different story. If life and limb are not at stake, sure charge a fee.

See, because you all in the US are calling for government help to come bail your asses out, the Goverment gets to call the tune, and it will get worse unless you reject this "FREE" government help.

I guess its a two sided sword.

If you are really in a dangerous situation, then you should be able to call rescue, to get you out, without worring about having to kill yourself soon anyways, because you are homeless because of the fee for it.

but on the other hand, if rescue is free and easy, it lures - stupid - people into doing things they should not do, thus costing everyone money, and worse - probably endangering the lives of the rescuers.

It should be decided on a case by case basis, wether a rescue should be paid or not.

idiots that go into the mountains without a clue, or stupid SUV riders, should pay, so that they learn.

But an experienced climber, that simply has bad luck?


that said, i am european, so im used to "free" health care and stuff, but rescues in the mountains are still extra, i think. so i am insured via the german alpine club. should i need a heli, i will get it, but i will damn well make shure that i do not.

But is that really common? it seems not. I have seen and heard so many cases where people simply call the rescue, just because they think they probably will not make it, without even thinking about the dangers for the rescueers, or simply turning around, and spending the late evening on the easier part of the descent.

qwert

samglass wrote on 01/05/2010 07:17:57 AM:

Making them pay for a rescue is a great idea.

How about gumbies pay full-boat but bonafide no effin way to avoid that situ type stuff is covered by the state.

If some guys belay gets iced by a 15' swell of 90 mile an hour snow and ice and he's stuck on a ledge with no place to go then we pull out all the stops to get him.

If gumby joe caver who is 6'1 and 200 pounds decides he can handle a 150' long tube called the birth canal then the rescue is on his coin.

Same with the climbing party that goes up on a big wall and leaves behind essentials like cold weather gear and water. They pay to be rescued.

I think blatant, "Oh! No way! Someone really was dumb enough to do that?" stuff should be on the rescued tab. But I think serious accidents that are shown to be unavoidable are no charge.

To me being charged for a rescue is no different than being charged for an ambulance ride to the E.R. Both cost money and you as the client should have to pay for a part, if not all of it.

Charging an upfront rate acts as a deterrent to use the services which almost certainly will result in an increase in fatalities after the fact.

No, not at all, look at Europe. I you chose to go screw around in the mountains, you can get insurance. If you chose not to, then you'd better have a back up plan. If not, tough titty said the momma kitty.

Sounds like a good idea in theory, but life has a way of hating black-and-white, and prefering shades of gray.

O.K., seems pretty clear that a woman who hikes to the bottom of Grand Canyon and then needs a resque b/c she can't hike out is thre definition of dumb. Should have known as she was going down, and turned around before long, right?

And a climber being stuck by lightning in an unforecasted storm seems to be the definition of "needs rescue due to circumstances beyond his control"-- coud have happened to anyone, no matter how careful or experienced, right?

But what about someone who brought adequate food/gear/water on a climb, and then dropped the haul bag? Still free-service rescue, or has-to-pay rescue?

How about getting more nitty-gritty: someone who knew that there was a storm in the forecast, but decided to play the odds... Someone who takes a chance when there is 30% chance of a storm in the forecast gets free rescue, but someone who takes the same chance when there is a 60% chance of a storm gets to pay?

or how about someone who get stranded due to rockfall? Rockfall is always a danger. Do we arbitrarily divide the climbing areas into " low-rockfall-potential" ( so if you do get unfortunate enough to be affected by one in these areas you get a free rescue) and "high rockfall potential" (so if you choose to climb there you get to pay in the event of a rockfall)? Who decides on the cut-off and defines the areas?

As long as it does not go to;

Needing proof of insurance to climb in certain areas.
Or having to register as a "Do not rescue", no insurance, no income.

Or even worse a license, registration, and proof of insurance.

Whatever.

Its very clear the American climbing public feels entitled to a 'best effort' rescue, regardless of who pays for it, themselves, the government or insurance.

Anyway you cut it, this says climbers are becoming increasinly unwilling to accept full responsibility for themselves.

Now ask yourselves citizens... when you choose to avoid taking self-responsibility, who must do it for you?

Don't want to be your own police man do you? No. So the government does it and oh btw here's the rules, Citizen!

Don't wanna drive your owm ambulance, the G will do it for you. Oh btw Citizen, here's the rules.

Expect someone else to rescue didjya Citizen?

HERE'S THE RULES.

Don't like the rules?

DON'T CALL FOR RESCUE.

But if you expect the G to come rescue you they will... with rule books in hand.

Its axiomatic.

DMT

It's give and take. My neighbors are fat and smoke, yet I foot the bill for their medical expenses (I'm Canadian). I'll willing to bet that I cost much less to society than they do.

Wait... I see what you did here. You reference yourself but its someone else's problem.

You'll never need a rescue no. Someone else, always.

Good one.

DMT

To me being charged for a rescue is no different than being charged for an ambulance ride to the E.R.

Charge the lost hiker or in your exsample the lost hikers family that called in the request for rescue.

OK they never found him, in real life. And the bill was closer to a million.

Still charge the family?

DMT

Hmmmm, Ok.

Cheers
DMT

You asked, I answered.

Wasn't a 'critical' hmmm my friend, just an acknowledgment.

I actually think your way is best, long term, for freedom.

Sadly our safety lovin fellow citizens aren't callous enough to 'let em bleed out.'

Yet.

They don't want freedom. They want a binky.

We're on the same page to some extent. However, my position is that as long as t shirt hiker dude get a million dollar search 'for nothing' then by god singling out climbers, particularly WHEN OTHER CLIMBERS DO IT... blows.

Not saying you did that - I'm just saying, good for t shirt dude, good for ill equipped party on the Captain.

DMT

Rescues are no more than an accident, regardless if someone else says they could of seen it coming or not. Were required to rescue victims in smashed cars regardless of the cause (drunk driver) without compensation. Police come to the call even if some dip just got up in Tyson's face. We try to rescue people and or houses from fire even if an unattended cig started it. Doesn't matter, were there, without a bill for it later. Sure it can be dangerous for those responding. We've all laid it out on the line from time to time answering different calls, sometimes unexpectedly. No one has ever forced me to put myself into a life threatening situation, it's an individual call.

worth repeating

And worth pointing out that in the above car accident exsample it dose cost you to ride in the ambulance, get treated by paramedics, and / or get a helicopter ride out of the area you had the accident in.