Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Who is gonna pay for the SAR?

Link to MSN article on who should pay if they have to come rescue your arse if you get into trouble on the mountain.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/227009?GT1=43002

The way I see it...

You know the risks...

Don't be stupid...

Stupidity should be painful (and deadly in some instances...)

Why should it be any different for hikers or climbers that get into trouble than for others in this country?

Wall Street gets in trouble and we bail 'em out. The banks, the same thing. Hillary just told the rest of the world that we will pay them with fees (taxes) to help them in global warming. Heck, go visit an animal shelter and see how many people think you ought to pay for the animal they wanted to throw away. People upside down on their mortgages get to walk away and financially hurt others who had nothing to do with it. Lots of examples: fat people blame McDonalds, so there are lawsuits to make them pay. Coffee falls on a lap, so another lawsuit.

And as time goes on, it's going to get worse......so hold on and as your government expands to take care of us, our personal responsibility shrinks.

Over the last 20 years, "personal responsibility" has been lost. So I say......not only should we pay to help rescue every person who gets lost, turns on their SPOT, etc., we should thank them for giving us the opportunity to help them.

:-).......well, maybe not.

Last May, I posted a NASAR (National Association for Search and Rescue) position statement on the other message board. It addressed the question of who should pay for SAR, particularly in the cases where the subjects appeared to have taken outrageous risks. The recent Mt. Hood tragedy has naturally precipitated the question again.


On Saturday, Howard Paul, the PIO for NASAR, forwarded a Connecticut newspaper article to all MRA (Mountain Rescue Association) members. The article concludes with "In their day I'm sure many detractors regarded Ferdinand Magellan, Edmund Hillary and Neil Armstrong as reckless risk takers. I don't like to see anybody die at sea, on a mountain or in space, but I'd also hate to live in a world where people never challenged themselves to explore new horizons."

The point being that people who take inordinate risks shouldn't be treated differently from those who get into trouble in other ways. That's a position supported by all of us who are involved in SAR.

Bob is correct. Usually, it is the local County Sheriff who pays the SAR bill, since they are the responsible law enforcement agency. That responsibility includes the safety of all persons within their jurisdiction.

We would not have to expect pay the costs of police or fire department assistance when we have an accident at home or on the highway, so we shouldn't be forced to pay for assistance in the mountains either.

However, contributions to your local SAR groups are always welcome. Most SAR personnel are unpaid volunteers, some of whom lose work pay when they go on missions.

I find this attitude very reassuring -- especially since some folks view my mountain pursuits foolish at the point where I step out the door. Assessing "risks" and "unnecessary risks" and just plain foolhardiness is a very subjective at best ( I certainly would not want my mother on that determination committee!)Some of the best laid trip plans turn into disasters even for the most seasoned of outdoorsman, thus, I would be reticent to think that there would be some sort of flash-card flow chart deciding what percentage of percieved foolishness costs what.

B

I asked the question who should pay and added a link without making a comment.I can tell you this with all the city,county and state financial crises, more and more agencies are going to demand repayment by the rescued.Thank God we are blessed with SARs in Calif. that only care about rescuing and finding survivors before thay are casulties.I think it is a disturbing and growing trend to charge the rescued.

I am such a statistics freak; I would be interested to know what the breakdown of rescue "types" there are in a single year. For instance, one category could be "freak accidents" which could consist of general falls, equipment failure, etc. Another category could be "physiological malfunctions"such as heart attacks, AMS, etc.(I am not sure how to categorize "Getting Lost" -- it might account for a large amount of the rescues, too) My point being: I wonder just how many of the rescues could be catagorized as blatant "Fault" types (meaning some gross misjudgement resulted in a SAR mission needed)

It is my hope that a majority of the SAR missions veer away from "Fault" type rescues, and reflect more of a randomness such as the illnesses or injury accidents.

B

Hi bee. There is an annual publication called Accidents in North American Mountaineering. It's mostly about climbing accidents, but gives insight into the causes of those kinds of accidents. As I recall, statistics are also given.

Some SAR team websites also have incident reports that sometimes reveal causes of hiking and climbing accidents.

I hope this helps.

Hi Rod, Yea, I think it's great that people can get rescued and not get in financial crisis from the rescue. I'm just a bit concerned about SARS going out to someone who presses their SPOT, only to find the people they are rescuing are fine. I think you'll remember the post on the other board that talked about the people in the Grand Canyon that pressed SPOT a few times....only to find out they were fine.

Thank you Bob West; I will look up the publication and see what it says (I think that this is the same one that Ken mentioned as being very informative for learning purposes.)

QS, I forgot about that whole SPOT debacle; I think that blatant and obvious abuse of the system is a whole other issue that should be dealt with severe consequences.

B

I agree with you Joe. It is a problem only when some Yuppie kid with the latest in technology gets scared cuz he developed a blister on the trail and hits the mommy button on his SPOT to get transported out via helicopter.

And it's only going to get worse in the years to come as the technology becomes more affordable and prevalent. It won't be that long till it's available as a standard in cellphones, watches, etc. Hell, it may already be in some high-end items.

Lots of growth for SAR down the road . . .

Umm ...not so sure. The same was said when people started carrying cell phones on the trail. I've now read statements from SAR units that cell phones have helped reduce the number of injuries and deaths and often allow them to find someone faster.

It seems to be human nature to balk when new technologies are introduced, whether it be Gore-tex, plastic double boots, fleece, GPSr's, cell phones, PLB's, etc. Each introduction moves the "line" a bit further.

Until recently, I would have agreed that almost all SARs I've heard about or been involved in were legit. Maybe not ultimately requiring the response (e.g. a helicopter or something else expensive) but some level of agency response was needed.

When cell phones came into use, I was worried we'd get more bogus requests but they actually helped define the problem and make an appropriate response -- you could usually talk to the party and tell them to wait or struggle down on their own.

SPOTs & PLBs,though, might be a problem. You don't have that two way communication. All you have is something that supposedly says "Help." The SPOT & PLB calls this year at Sequoia Kings were almost all bogus. Calls for help by people who didn't even bother coming up with a Plan II for self-evacuation. Then there was also a techno-related case of a party following their GPS without any regard for the terrain it was taking them into. That ultimately required a major search effort and short-haul helicopter rescue of three people.

So that's to say that the taxpayer cost of people not using their technology in a responsible way may be increasing. At the moment, I don't advocate charging for rescues, but I'd sure want to start looking at whether a call is legit as well as at how the companies market their gizmos and what sort of instructions and form factor they have that prevents bogus calls. They're the ones profiting from these things. Maybe they're the ones who should cover some of the SAR costs when not justified.

George

That's a thoughtful response, George, particularly from someone involved in SARs. Are you at Ostrander this winter?

Moving in a different direction, one assumption that I see voiced frequently in such discussions, is the value of volunteer SAR. Frequently, what is voiced is that most SAR is volunteer, so there is no value attached to it, and charging someone is moot. Somehow, that really bothers me, as a person who does various volunteer activities. I think it really devalues the worth of the SAR work. I think the worth is what would be paid to maintain equivalent professional groups able to do the work, whatever that would be.

Ken:

Oh Woe -- I haven't worked at the hut for 3 years now. No excuse, other than an attempt to make a little more money at writing bad government prose.

Yet another thought on endless SAR stuff. I think there's maybe too much attention on SARs for people being stupid. I've found that to be pretty rare. The trauma is often someone just slipping on a wet rock or sliding down a boulder or something. Usually just bad luck. Not sure of the percentage, but I think most (70% ??) is people getting sick. Most all of that is also just bad luck. HAPE, flu where someone's puking so bad they've really got to be out, heart problems with no previous history -- all that stuff isn't really anyone's fault.

So just pointing out we can spend a lot of time talking about rescues for dumb mistakes (the Grand Canyon example comes to mind), but mostly you've just got a lot of people and X percent of them are going to get sick or injured like in any population -- it's just a little harder to get them out.

g.

Here's what the American Alpine Club has to say: Real Cost of Mt. Rescue

Lots of interesting information. For example, I didn't realize that the number of climbing rescues in Oregon barely exceed those of mushroom pickers. (Table 5)

Great article Bob R.  George and Ken, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful responses.  I think this issue has gained some light on the real issue.  Stuff happens in the mountains, mostly accidentally and or unfortunately.  Thank goodness there are selfless and well trained people willing to risk a lot or all to save them.

> For example, I didn't realize that the number of climbing rescues in Oregon barely exceed those of mushroom pickers. (Table 5)

And climbing rescues come in at 3.8%, after Hiking, Motor Vehicle, Hunting, Wandering, Boating, and Fixed Wing aircraft, the sum of which comes to 62.3%

Interesting data. I'd be curious what the definitions are of "climbing" versus "hiking" as they roll-up the numbers. Is climbing based on technical routes versus established trails, or do winter conditions come in to play? If you head up the MMWT in January with full winter climbing gear and have to be SARed, is that a hike or a climb? As with most statistics, the devil is in the details. It seems to me that it would be a very fine line in many cases whether a hiker was climbing or a climber was hiking since they're so closely related.

I in no way advocate charging for rescues of any kind. My only quibble is the possibly increasing use of gadgets to call for help which may be leading to an increase in unnecessary responses by the agency. But, I'm not happy with the above statement -- seems more than a bit disingenuous. A National Guard helicopter does, in fact, cost a lot of taxpayer money whether they "charge" the SAR account or not (I think it's usually figured in most cost accounting, just not payed by the agency). Only a very few parks charge a climbing fee and I doubt they come anywhere near paying for more than 1 seasonal ranger position -- certainly not a SAR effort.

But a really interesting article. Somewhere around here I have a costs by park of SARs. Both Yosemite and Sequoia are near the top in costs, though Sequoia Kings is, I think, only in the top 10 for number of incidents. Since it's so remote, I think there's a higher proportion of helicopter medivacs, which would raise the cost quite a bit.

g.

I find it interesting that this topic is about to merge with the "Mt Hood to Require Locator Beacons" thread, because I ended my post by expressing my concern that requiring the beacons might give folks a sense of back pocket security.

B

Not shown. Dumped for some celebutard.

The January issue of Meridian, the Mountain Rescue Association's quarterly newsletter is just out. The lead article is by Howard Paul, whom I've quoted before on this subject.

Really good article.

Thanks!

g.

Ditto thanks

Here's another interesting article. A breakdown of costs and numbers of SARs per park in the NPS:

Dead Men Walking: Search and Rescue in US
National Parks
Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 20, 244-249 (2009)

Dead Men Walking Article

George

I believe that statistically driving your car to the trailhead is far more dangerous and therefore far more fool hardy than hiking or climbing. If you are in a car accident driving to the trailhead you would expect the sheriff etc to come to your rescue. The other option is to never leave home. If someone has a heart attack at home they come and take you away in an ambulance. The actual danger of SAR mountain rescues is born by volunteers mostly, who are mostly people who enjoy mountain activities and WANT to GIVE of THEMSELVES to HELP OTHERS who engage in these activities. PS - The number of hiker rescues in Yosemite far exceeds the climber rescues.
just my $.03 worth.
Jim

Probably because the number of hikers far exceeds the number of climbers -- just a guess.

CaT

CaT
that was the point I was making was abut the numbers. The actual number of hikers needing rescue and therefore the money spent, far exceeds the climber rescues, not only because of the number of hikers and their relative lack of training/knowledge/preparedness, but because climbers can generally effect self rescues as well, so rescuing climbers is a tiny bit of the Yosemite SAR work so why should people get overly upset about it?
Jim

The point is everyone thinks that they can walk up a mountain without training or equipment. Most people are smart enough to not try to climb without training ,experience and equipment.The very nature of hiking being taken for granted as something anyone can do verses climbing which most people know they can't do without the requsite training/experience.That is why there is a huge number of hikers verses climbers.As the saying goes "There are old climbers and there are bold climbers but there are not any old bold climbers."

I'm not sure I accept that. Both climbers & hikers get themselves out on their own. I don't have a great feel for it, but I suspect there isn't much of a difference and perhaps a slight tilt to climbers needing assistance more (as a percentage of climbers vs. hikers). As mentioned above, there's tens of thousands of hikers out there and maybe only 2,000 climbers per year (in Yosemite).

Still, it doesn't matter. The point of the article, I think, is to show the costs involved with all SARs and that climbers don't account for a dramatically different cost. The problem seems to be that whenever there's some level of seriously technical response (climbing, winter conditions), the newspapers or comments often question the cost based on the "weirdness" of the activity. Also, of course, many hiker rescues are too mundane to receive coverage and the public perception is skewed... .


g.

Good points, George.

The interesting thing to me in the article is the inclusion of suicides. Brings back memory of a suicide on the Whitney north fork in winter several years ago. After it was determined a suicide, all the posts and everything written about it was deleted from public view.

That is a very common practice when it comes to suicide, Steve. I have found in the business, that suicide conjures up all things negative: guilt,anger,fear and its bad for business when it takes place in a touristy area.

B

Although not statistically significant, another consideration too often overlooked is that a SAR might be a crime scene. In the early days, we didn't even consider that -- distraught family, moderate chaos, trying to get or find person as quickly as possible. Maybe the last 15 years, NPS looks at that possibility a lot more carefully. After investigation, there's been a few (Yosemite and Sequoia Kings) that have, in fact, been crimes. Where a fall was actually a push... .

g.