coldfoot wrote: Most SAR units, county sheriffs etc that I've seen an opinion from on the subject, say the vast majority of their callouts are for day hikers, lost kids, elderly or low-functioning people who wander off, etc. The dramatic searches for backpackers and climbers that make the news are a small fraction.
This is a valid point, but most people who venture into the backcountry are day hikers, etc, so it would be expected that the breakdown in callouts would reflect the "demographics". Most of our callouts were for lost day hikers, nothing too exciting. This happens relatively often. The hard-core climbers, (a) there are relatively few of them compared to the majority of back-country visitors, and (b) they usually know what they are doing. Thus, callouts for them are rare.
coldfoot wrote:The problem is, you are never going to get day hikers and tourists, not to mention lost kids, to buy rescue insurance. Yet we as a society (in the US at least) expect the sheriff's dept to go find them, and I think that's appropriate in a civilized society. I just don't think you can persuade the society to charge day-hikers and kids for rescue. So where do you draw the line about who has to carry the insurance or get charged? Anyone out for an overnight? Anyone on class 3 or greater terrain? Anyone with a rope? Anyone who sprays about climbing on the internet? Anyone wearing a softshell, or with a dead-bird logo?
Requiring insurance would then give the insurers considerable latitude to decide what you can and can't do. They could deny coverage by deeming the angling 3rd-class rock you scrambled and slipped on was "unreasonably reckless". This is a slippery slope (no pun intended). Who would decide what is safe, reckless or unreasonable? (see below)
---
I think some general education on what SAR is and how it works would be ideal. Perhaps a 30-second public service announcement on TV. When people hear of a rescue, they get riled up about the costs. The media often doesn't know enough to set the record straight. For example, they'll show the helicopters and guys on Jeeps (because it makes good TV) and thus, it's easy to conclude this is costing "me" (the taxpayer) a bundle. Instead, focus on the volunteer aspect, the actual immense cost-
savings to the general public that SAR provides.
As an example, the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team donates money to the Central AZ MRU team whenever a D-back hits a homerun. The announcers also make it a point to briefly describe what CAMRA and SAR in general does. This alone makes a huge difference in perception. Most of my friends and acquaintances had little idea how SAR worked and that we didn't get paid. I'll bet most people don't know this.
Similar anologies exist as other have mentioned. We all pay for EMS/Fire/Police services, yet may never need them ourselves. SAR is no different. It's already part of the mandate of the sheriff/DPS and is already part of its budget. Yes, there will be abuses. But don't fixate on them. For every abuse, there's probably 10 legit cases that never made the news because it was boring and mundane.
Dow's position (to me) is untenable. With much irony, what he proposes, by logical extension, could eventually cut him (and all of us) off from the backcountry, or severely restrict us to activities deemed statistically safest by actuaries. SummitPost would have to change its name to PavedNatureWalkPost.