Rescues should be a liability of the individual(s) needing rescue, managed no different than how a particular jurisdiction collects on a speeding ticket, through the courts via a fine. Anyone who could get lost on a particular route should not be climbing it to begin with in my opinion, but that's impossible to police nor do I believe government has the competence to do so. Darwin's Law is the best selection management tool for such activities. If someone gets hurt by accident on a route and needs rescue, then the cost of rescue is simply the risk they take to enjoy that sport or activity. That cost should not be passed on to those who do not want to take similar risks.
This stance is about less government intervention in your lives. More of a libertarian twist. Live and let live until you affect me or in this case the community in which you live or visit in terms of their tax dollars. Dialing 911 should have consequences, it should be the last resort....or, you can dial 911 if somebody did not make your sandwiches the way you liked them...true story about a month ago. Zero consequences.
In Canada National parks, they charge you extra fees on your park pass to cover their annual budgeted expense of rescues, partially why their national park pass is almost twice what a US National Park pass is. I am cool with that if that is how big brother wants to do it. Currently, many if not most SAR rescues are not paid for by user fees or collected as fines, but rather passed on to the tax payer at large, i.e. Clark County for Red Rock, NCA.
Some offer weird responses to such debates, i.e. how great a particular SAR team might or might not be. That has nothing to do with it. Same weird responses some Americans exhibit about war debates..."but the troops are such great folks risking it all!"...might be true, but that point has nothing to do with the validity of the war they might be risking it all for.