things like go out on a stormy foggy day in a rec boat on cape cod with no skills or compass.
Others bushwhack in yosemite forests without map compass or water and end up spending three days there with ther wife and kids all the time less than five mmiles fron a road. More that 200 man hours on that search
Such folks should be charged for their rescues in my opinion. There behavior was totally irresponsible. Everyone else should not be charged. Does that help with your contemplation of the issue.
I agree but why shouldn’t the skilled paddler be charged because he bailed in a class 4 river and lost his boat and gear, broke his ankle, and needed to be rescued.
My take on this Is that what we’re trying to do is discourage the morons of the world by slapping them with a big fat fee if they, through complete moron-ness, put other people’s lives in jeopardy.
And they think they have “the right” to call for a free bail-out.
hard call Part of me wnats to agree with sing – it’s just a potential cost of playing hard. I’ve read that in some countries you can buy rescue insurance, and that seems like a reasonable option for those who belive in personal responsibility.
On the other hand, as a society we seem to believe in rescuing people from other sorts of accidents – car crashes, fires, etc. – and rarely charge them for the costs, no matter how stupid the victim seems to have been. In almost all cases the victim could have made different choices to reduce their risk. Why should outdoor sports be any different?
One thing that bothers me is how little hard data there seems to be on rescue costs. I’ve read that national park rangers spend a significant percentage of their time on things like children that have wandered into the next campsite, but the few high-profile sports cases are the ones that get blamed for high costs.
I think most participants in an activity can reach some consensus on what would be “reasonable precautions” for a given situation. If the victim was operating far outside those standards, they should pay.
In your example, was he solo grandstanding with no backup? Or was he part of a good team, and getting hurt was a complete fluke? My gut feeling is that there’s a difference.
That’s quite a leap. In other words, there is no good reason.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the morons should pay. It just looks like the elitist head is showing itself on this thread. I think all should pay or none should pay. If the coast guard is already there why should the moron pay for a sea rescue. Call it a training exercise.
Absolutely… imagine the process for determining the “skilled” vs the “unskilled…” What a panel of inquiry comprised of whom? Naw, too much time and money involved. Oh wait, if the rescuee is certified (never mind that he still got into trouble…) than he must be skilled and therefore exempt from having to pay.
Maybe not the intention, but the result is an “elitist” system.
reasonable expectations I don’t know if “elitist” is the right term, but you have a point: a beginner honestly doesn’t know what they don’t know. An experienced paddler can recognize hazards that a beginner wouldn’t.
On the other hand, there are some “what were you thinking!” cases that are so blatantly idiotic that almost any rational human would agree that they were stupid. Non-paddling example: I was just at a class on burn injuries where the doctor described someone who had come in with a perfectly round 3rd-degree burn on his arm. The victim said he had bet someone that he could put a piece of metal on his arm and cut through it with a welding torch without getting burned.
Why should I subsidize the “rescue” of this guy’s arm?
Also… In most whitewater accidents, you HAVE rescue insurance if you have health insurance, because it’s going to be an ambulance that’s going to rescue you most of the time. Everyone pays in that scenario regardless of skill or preparedness.
That’s an entirely different scenario from a coast guard rescue, because most ambulance companies (At least where I live)are for-profit businesses, not taxpayer-supported services like the USCG, or the Forest Service. Whole different standard. We already pay for USCG and forest service in advance. What I’m advocating is making stupid people pay for unnecessary situations that they create (That includes searching for little kids — where are the parents?). A simple accident can happen to anybody, prepared or not, and those folks I believe should continue to be rescued for free as they are now.
Actually, I wouldn’t mind paying for SAR insurance in exchange for keeping the freedoms I have at the moment, or even getting a few new ones. As someone said earlier, freedom ain’t free.
and rescues cost money. User pays - fee for service. Simple. What more needs to be determined? Forget this "skilled" vs "unskilled." Subjective and possibly "elitist."
Anyone rescued should ponder, after paying, what went wrong and rethink whether they will be in a similar situation again.
Imagine the idiot who pulled the emergency beacon was charged the first time. Would he have done it the second time? I think not.
Skilled Moron? “In your example, was he solo grandstanding with no backup? Or was he part of a good team, and getting hurt was a complete fluke? My gut feeling is that there’s a difference.”
What about a skilled hot dogger (moron). Where does he/she fall. Where is that line drawn. Does moron out weigh skill. If he was alone who would know.
How to pay I guess some parks apply part of the entrance fee to the SAR fund, and folks get rescued for free. The more responsible alternative might be to make that an optional “insurance” fee: everyone gets charged for rescue except those who kicked in the extra couple of bucks at the gate.
I think a lot of responsible outdoor folks would pay a reasonable fee for personal SAR insurance. Or would that also encourage more stupidity?
It won’t keep them away The idiots that take risks stupid enough to be charged for rescues are not aware enough to be deterred by potential rescue fees. If they would be, they’d most likely also be aware enough of the risks in the first place to take steps to avoid them like the rest of us.
Charging the clueless will not enlighten them - it will only feed their lawyers. You cannot apply logical deterrence methods to illogical and/or uninformed individuals. Those who would be deterred - would also be better prepared to begin with.
Sorry. I like the image of sending a bill to those who were asking for it, but it just doesn’t work. It may play nicely in the rare court rulings used to make examples of extreme cases, but the next batch of idiots will never hear about them so it won’t help.
it’s not down to skills its hard skills soft skills, attitude, preparation, gear, everything.
My point it if the guys doing the SAR think that you were being totally foolhardy you should pay, many folks do indeed carry rescue insurance. don’t like that you can appeal to a judge.
Yea, Send Them The Bill… If they want to contest it, fine. It’s like contesting a speeding fine. You go before a judge and he asks, “You were recorded speeding at X MPH. Pay the fine or go to jail.” Your lawyer has better have a good set of extenuating circumstances for you.
Show up in court after rescue if you want to contest the bill. But If I were the judge, I would simply say, “You were rescued. You used the service. Pay the bill. If you can’t pay all at once, work out a payment plan with the collector.”
If skilled kayakers (whoever decides who they are) would decide which kayakers were prepared and which weren’t - it would almost work (but still suck). Same with any sport if called on to judge their own (though I would not want to claim most of the “paddlers” I’ve read about).
Trouble is, some councilperson/congressperson hunting for votes and ways to divert funding to his district will be the one writing this crap up. Odds are he’ll bow to the masses who think:
WE ARE ALL NUTS FOR PADDLING small boats on open, cold, or swift waters.
No matter what, we are engaged in potentially dangerous and TOTALLY OPTIONAL pursuits. The general public will not differentiate a 4 star BCU from 4 idiots in a rental canoe. Sorry, not gonna happen. Neither needed to be out there.
This pay to play logic is a quick trip to wider regulation and restricted waters. Think it through. ALL the way through.
Then expect bills from PD, FD, etc. Ridiculous, as we ALREADY pay them!
The Coast Guard understands their job. Let them do it as intended.
Agree with Greyak You can’t legislate or cost out of existance the idiotic things people do. Knowing your limits is also a fine line. Some people don’t even know that they have limits. I run across people all summer long on the trails by my home that let their kids run off trail through the poison ivy. I kindly point that out and they say, “Oh! What does it look like?” A very experienced electrician I know just, this week, shot himself in the hand with a powder actuated anchor gun (Ramset for you craftsmen). This guy has used rifles and pistols for years and knows to unload before unjam. He gets workman’s comp. for his trouble. Maybe there should be more rescue insurance programs.
this does not really belong in this thread but I put it after the most recent post as it will probably be of interest to many of you.
Check the fall issue of Adventure Kayak magazine there is an article entitled, "Get Out, or Stay Out? with wilderness travel comes wilderness risk. Will you know when to press on and when to pull the chute?"
The article deal with a first hand account of an evacuation and discusses "pre-trip planning and keys to successful evacuation"