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.