The Wages Of Sin

Discussion of medical or rescue topics related to climbing and mountaineering.
User Avatar
pinscar

 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:43 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

The Wages Of Sin

by pinscar » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:38 am

While I am not a misanthrope, I do think this has been a long time coming. If you want to keep those rescuers everyone seems to hold in such high regard out of harm's way, then send them out on less calls by keeping the morons out of the backcountry.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091 ... ofile=1058

Put the great, unprepared, swarming masses on notice. Let them know there will be repercussions for their venturing forth with no more than vacuous looks upon their countenances and the thought that divine providence alone will see them through. Fast track a federal law allowing local authorities the option to charge those woefully uninformed souls - who's rescues have been reviewed and deemed to have been rooted in an abject lack of preparedness - with Felony Stupidity.

The end is nigh! The end is niiiiiiiiigh!

Okay ... I'm done.

User Avatar
taxinvestor

 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:31 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by taxinvestor » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:13 pm

Anyone in need of rescue in the mountains has made a mistake - now we are going to establish a liability scale based on their preparedness?

Either bill everybody who gets rescued - and refund my taxes - or bill nobody.

User Avatar
pinscar

 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:43 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by pinscar » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:45 pm

taxinvestor wrote:Anyone in need of rescue in the mountains has made a mistake - now we are going to establish a liability scale based on their preparedness?


Why not? People are involved in motor vehicle accidents all the time. Some are ticketed, some are not. Being ticketed for being at fault in an accident does not make one a bad person. It is simply society's way of imposing responsibility on those who in many cases would be perfectly content to walk away from it without thought or remorse.

If you are at fault and require a rescue it is only fair you be required to pay. Whether you are an unprepared moron or a veteran who gets caught behind the 8-ball, you should be held liable for costs incurred, unless the preponderance of evidence points toward it having been unavoidable. If the general public were made to consider the possibility they might be financially liable for their actions in the backcountry, then perhaps the number of rescues would decrease.

Offer a free lunch (as we have been doing for a very long time) and everyone will scramble to get it; charge a price for that same meal and your numbers become more manageable.

User Avatar
albanberg

 
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:34 am
Thanked: 8 times in 8 posts

by albanberg » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:17 pm

I noticed when we got a spot that the rescue insurance offered with the device was quite cheap. I have not signed up yet since I have not done anything extreme.

User Avatar
drjohnso1182

 
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:26 am
Thanked: 6 times in 5 posts

Re: The Wages Of Sin

by drjohnso1182 » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:38 pm

pinscar wrote:While I am not a misanthrope, I do think this has been a long time coming. If you want to keep those rescuers everyone seems to hold in such high regard out of harm's way, then send them out on less calls by keeping the morons out of the backcountry.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20091 ... ofile=1058

Put the great, unprepared, swarming masses on notice. Let them know there will be repercussions for their venturing forth with no more than vacuous looks upon their countenances and the thought that divine providence alone will see them through. Fast track a federal law allowing local authorities the option to charge those woefully uninformed souls - who's rescues have been reviewed and deemed to have been rooted in an abject lack of preparedness - with Felony Stupidity.

The end is nigh! The end is niiiiiiiiigh!

Okay ... I'm done.

Are SAR groups in favor of this? It sounds like they'd have to go to court every time they want to get paid.

How does this benefit anyone? Either you're paying taxes to support SAR, or you're paying for some sort of rescue insurance (or you'd better have some money saved for legal costs to fight the charge that you're at fault for the rescue).

User Avatar
Saintgrizzly

 
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 9:38 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by Saintgrizzly » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:23 pm

taxinvestor wrote:Anyone in need of rescue in the mountains has made a mistake...

Seriously? Mountains are dangerous, even without "mistakes." What about "he/she/they did nothing wrong, but was/were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? "

User Avatar
JGHarrison

 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:36 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

2c

by JGHarrison » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:27 pm

Billing folks for rescue seems like it would involve a lot of tough decisions. The question of what does "prepared" mean seems like a pretty big one. For instance, would I get charged for not having the "ten essentials (seriously, who carries all this crap)? And look at the minisicule amonts of gear taken on high-end alpine quests (no bivy gear, half of an ice screw, and a ball of twine for rappells : ) Seems that being prepared is a real tough call for someone to make about someone else.

I wouldnt have a problem paying for my rescue if I needed it. But look at those folks that took a wrong turn and were a day late....I know that it could have been serious and there is only one way to find out, but hey that is why folks volunteer for SAR. Perhaps only paying for a rescue when it has been called out, or requested by a family member ??? tough call.

Or, what if you end up rescuing yourself, but still a search was underway...would you have to pay for something you didnt even use?

So many tough questions...seems better to just leave it as it is. I like Zion NPs program...to my understanding it works like this: your backcountry permit fees pay for any needed rescue. I once had my rap ropes get stuck on the final rappell sequence of Heaps canyon...Rope stuck below and rope stuck above as I was in the middle of a multi-stage rappell. I just prusicked up and slept on top to avoid making a mistake in the dark. The rangers came and saw me from the ground the next day as I finished up with the sequence and realized I was fine ...they didnt have any issues with my decision as it was based on safety. It would have sucked to have to pay a couple hundred bucks for that....

Oh well, that is enough 2c for a rainy day. Cheers, JH

User Avatar
Saintgrizzly

 
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 9:38 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by Saintgrizzly » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:33 pm

pinscar wrote: If the general public were made to consider the possibility they might be financially liable for their actions in the backcountry, then perhaps the number of rescues would decrease.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by using the word, "perhaps". Does it mean," maybe, maybe not?" Or "this might work, but it might not?" The article to which you refer makes it seem that, even in New Hampshire, the policy is anything but an unqualified success, and those against such billing procedures—for the several reasons laid out in the article—are not the "morons" who'll be in need of saving, but the very SAR folks involved in the rescue.


pinscar wrote:Offer a free lunch (as we have been doing for a very long time) and everyone will scramble to get it; charge a price for that same meal and your numbers become more manageable.

Sorry if I'm being unreasonably argumentative, but that seems such a simplistic statement it's difficult to take it seriously in the context with which it is intended. Even "morons" don't "scramble" into the mountains with the idea of obtaining injury and free rescue. Or include as part of their pre-outing thinking..."I don't have to be careful, because if I'm injured I'll be rescued, no charge."

It seems to me there needs to be some kind of dividing line between what constitutes true idiotic activity versus lesser offenses. How many times have you heard, from the mountain-uninitiated, a surprised exclamation something along the lines of, "...snow? in July?" Those of us who've been in the mountains all our lives take many of the dangers, and preparations and cautions for such, for granted (as we also do the large amount—sometimes we forget just how much—learned through experience). If you've never been in that kind of environment, it's difficult—if not impossible—to imagine how different, how potentially deadly, in so very many ways, the mountain environs are. The answer is (and it's not easy!) to somehow, someway, get through to people how very different where they are about to go is from where they are coming from. If they're not educated, they won't know of the potential hazards, and are going to tread dangerously, threat of rescue fees or not.

However, for those that are grossly and/or criminally negligent, such as (just two examples) rope-climbing while drunk, or playing with fire in a tinder dry forest, I have no problem with them paying fines, or resultant rescue fees. Pinscar, I understand what you're saying; I'd just put the "penalty" line to be crossed in a substantially different location than you would.

User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Thanked: 143 times in 80 posts

by surgent » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:05 pm

Most rescue call-outs never make the news. They involve people overdue, maybe went down a wrong trail, or sprained an ankle, something major yet minor. Major enough to need assistance, minor enough to be mundane in the grand scheme of things. They get found in a matter of hours, carried out, everything goes according to the book. It doesn't make good newspaper reading or news for the TV.

Occasionally someone will really get in trouble, warranting a multi-day search, high-end technical teams, helicopters, etc. This is the sort of thing that gets attention and naturally it brings up the cost of such rescues, which always leads to calls for required up-front payments or automatic citations or a combination. This has been discussed in other threads. Remember, most rescue teams are volunteer.

Two very salient points:

1. All rescue teams work under the auspices of some law-enforcement agency - county, state or federal (e.g. NP, FS). It is they who can make the call to cite the rescued if they feel it is appropriate, and sometimes it is, and yes, sometimes the rescued gets dinged. It may be a small fine or it may be the entire cost. The mechanism for citations and/or fines is already in place.

2. Requiring payment up-front for a rescue will simply cause people to not report the need for one - their own or someone else. What could be a straight-forward rescue op turns into a deadly situation because the subject feared the cost. It happens!

Some may view this as "self sufficiency" which is fine, but there are times when you are in sh*t and can get out on your own, and there are times when you are in sh*t and no, you aren't getting out, and barring a rescue, you're a dead man.

Requiring insurance then gets those bastards involved. You can be denied a claim if your situation falls outside their acceptable requirements for you, and they make the decision. Sharp lawyers will find ways to make others - landowners, etc - liable. Routes, trails and whole areas get shut down. Insurance will try to avoid paying out anything, and it would be easy for them to find one fault with your situation to deny your whole claim.

What's happening here is a few very high-profile rescues of people on the far end of the moron scale are poisoning the waters for everyone. The guys in the Grand Canyon who pressed their SPOT 3 times? Idiots! Yes, cite them, imprison them, pull their pants down, they deserve to be publically ridiculed.

The girl in Oregon? Woefully unprepared, but she did walk 25 miles in the dark in challenging terrain and did extract herself. Fine her a small amount but at least she showed some perseverence to do what she did. The kid in NH? He paid his "fine" already. He's future rescue team material, frankly.

Check out your local SAR and see them if they have an open house. It can be very revealing and very interesting.

Don't let the handful of extreme cases color your perception of the majority of rescues. It's a system that works, all things considered.

User Avatar
pinscar

 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:43 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by pinscar » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:25 pm

surgent wrote:It's a system that works, all things considered.


And it will continue to work, for a great many people, if it is allowed to continue on its present course.

I much prefer the European model; one reads (or not) the posted warnings, and then one ventures forth, bon voyage. If the merde hits the fan, one had best be prepared to deal with it on one's own. If not, then it's gonna' cost you, Pierre.

User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Thanked: 2763 times in 1527 posts

by Bob Sihler » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:27 pm

This is always a tough issue. It's sometimes hard to define incompetence and unpreparedness. Some who get rescued don't need to be. And some who get in trouble, fearing huge fines, may choose not to seek help and end up making their situations worse.

Finally, those that most need to pay attention to the rules and use common sense are often the very ones who ignore those things, so you will not deter them.

User Avatar
jordansahls

 
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:41 am
Thanked: 6 times in 4 posts

by jordansahls » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:37 pm

The last thing mountain rescue needs is its own 3000 page bill so full of bureaucratic bullshit that you have to have a doctorate in law to be able to read the thing to know your rights, screw that.

User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Thanked: 787 times in 519 posts

by MoapaPk » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:25 pm

I was almost the subject of a totally unwanted SAR extraction, when there was actually nothing wrong, and I was ahead of schedule. I was totally unaware of what was happening till I got back to the parking lot, and found the people about to call SAR. I wonder who would have paid for that?

User Avatar
taxinvestor

 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:31 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by taxinvestor » Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:04 am

saintgrizzly wrote:
taxinvestor wrote:Anyone in need of rescue in the mountains has made a mistake...

Seriously? Mountains are dangerous, even without "mistakes." What about "he/she/they did nothing wrong, but was/were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? "


The article suggested the well prepared will not be billed.

I guess my point is the degree of mistake may be smaller for an experienced mountaineer vs. a noob, but the net result is a chopper lift - so what's the difference?

Next

Return to Mountain Medicine & Rescue

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests