Cost of Safety

[Iceaxe]

Cost of safety
Hikers should help pay for rescue

Salt Lake Tribune

Life isn't fair, and neither is the system of paying for search and rescue operations to bring hikers to safety in Utah. But it could be more fair than it is.

Hikers who get lost, injured or stranded in the backcountry outnumber boaters, snowmobilers, bikers, all-terrain-vehicle riders and hunters who need the same service. But the approximately $300,000 given by the state Search and Rescue Advisory Board to partially reimburse county crews last year came mostly from fees paid by hunters, boaters, ATVers and anglers. The Search and Rescue Financial Assistance Program distributed the funds and also helped pay for training and to replace equipment lost or damaged during searches.

The number of rescues is increasing. In Salt Lake County, rescues in the first five months of this year are nearly triple the number in the same period last year. So the fund might run out of money for the first time. If that happens, counties would have to make up the difference from their own budgets.

Search and rescue is an expensive service provided at no cost to people who put themselves in potentially dangerous situations, sometimes without proper preparation. It's hardly the same as services such as police and fire protection funded by taxpayers, since crime threatens everybody, and, even when a fire is caused by negligence, it can spread, and we're willing to pay to keep it from involving our homes, too.

Costly paramedic and ambulance services are not free to taxpayers; the patients are billed. In like manner, outdoor recreationists should be required to pay part of the cost of a life-saving rescue.

Some suggest billing those rescued for part or all of the cost of the operation instead of taking the money from license and registration fees collected from other recreationists, who tend not to need rescuing as often as hikers. There is some merit to that idea, especially for those hikers who tackle the outdoors without proper knowledge of the terrain and without the gear, food and water they need.

Counties could sell hiking permits to people headed into the backcountry or send rescued hikers a bill for part of the cost of finding them, transporting them to safety and providing medical care when needed. Hiker insurance is also available to help rescued people pay their share of the cost.

Outdoor recreation is important to Utah's economy and nobody wants to discourage people from enjoying the outdoors. But let's be fair about who should pay the inevitable costs when things go wrong.

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=12454079&siteId=297

[brookiekiller]

I would hate to see a permit system - I say bill the hikers who need the service. I would gladly pay SAR to save my butt from a bad situation that I put myself in. It is more than just money - because of stupidity or lack of preparedness, the lives of the rescue workers are at risk as well.

[DOSS]

I don't see any issues with charging a Hiking fee.. Heck sell hiking licenses.. $25 for 365 days a year + $5 for Mountaineering, Rock Climbing and Canyoneering..

As long as the $$ goes to S&R and Trail/Route upkeep I think it would be a good idea

[Iceaxe]

The main argument for not billing for a SAR is that people put off calling for help longer if they will be charged. It has been discovered that those extra couple of hours can mean life or death over the long haul. So it comes down to "how much is a life worth?"

FWIW: Colorado sells "Hiker Insurance". The money goes into a SAR fund. Buy the insurance and it covers any SAR, not that they bill you anyways, but its a way for hikers and climbers to help fund SAR. I don't know all the details, I'm sure some of the CO members can fill in the blanks.

[RedMan]

The CO SAR fund is not insurance.
It was established to help reimburse SAR organizations for their expenses.

You can still be charged but it is highly unlikely a local SAR team will bill you.

The sad part is that the funding is almost exclusively from hunting/fishing licenses and OHV permits but over half the rescues are for hikers who did not contribute to the fund.

HOWEVER, remember that they do not own the chopper that rescues you, that will almost certainly belong to an private AirMed transport company and you will absolutely be billed for that service.

My brother is an EMT in Piute county in Utah and they call a chopper twice a week and the patient is ALWAYS billed for the transport. It comes from one of three different companies, SLC, Page AZ, or Vegas.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you buy a SPOT Messenger and get the optional insurance which will offset some of the costs. The caveat is that you must have used the SPOT to get help or its no good.

Details from Colorados program are here.
http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/sar/index.html

[R]

I don't see any issues with charging a Hiking fee.. Heck sell hiking licenses.. $25 for 365 days a year + $5 for Mountaineering, Rock Climbing and Canyoneering..

As long as the $$ goes to S&R and Trail/Route upkeep I think it would be a good idea

If Utah passed a law like that, I would take a lot of my recreation dollars - a lot more than $25 - to New Mexico and Texas instead.

[Deathcricket]

The main argument for not billing for a SAR is that people put off calling for help longer if they will be charged. It has been discovered that those extra couple of hours can mean life or death over the long haul. So it comes down to "how much is a life worth?"

Charge em! My only concern is that perhaps the rescued victim would just not pay, even through massive litigation. And I think the SAR team needs to get paid no matter what.

[Iceaxe]

And I think the SAR team needs to get paid no matter what.

You already pay for SAR through your taxes....

So... if your house catches on fire should you have to reimburse the fire department for their trouble? If you are involved in a traffic accident should you have to reimburse the police for their work? What about the IRS? Should I have to pay the wage of the guy who audits me?

Just sayin

[DOSS]

I don't see any issues with charging a Hiking fee.. Heck sell hiking licenses.. $25 for 365 days a year + $5 for Mountaineering, Rock Climbing and Canyoneering..

As long as the $$ goes to S&R and Trail/Route upkeep I think it would be a good idea

If Utah passed a law like that, I would take a lot of my recreation dollars - a lot more than $25 - to New Mexico and Texas instead.

This is an attitude I have never fully understood.

I don't mind paying for what I use at all. I want to go fishing so I buy a fishing license that helps put money back into the system that checks the fishys health.. stocks ponds etc.
I pay to go into National parks like Zions where they implemented a shuttle system in the park that makes it so that I can go down the canyon without having the noise of 100's of cars.
If I knew that a Hiking permit helped pay for better equipped and trained SAR teams and helped keep them around for that one time that I misjudge something and get hurt (Don't say it won't happen to you it can and does to the best).

[oldno7]

I think Richard is just talking..........
Theres more scenery in 1 tiny corner of Utah than Texas and New Mexico combined.

I say we ban Richard from Utah anyway for having an attitude.

golly heck--if I want attitude I'll get it from one of my wifes.

[Iceaxe]

if I want attitude I'll get it from one of my wifes.

[denaliguide]

i have been a member of several SAR groups over the years and would never think of taking a dime for participating in a rescue.

if you get in a jam i am willing to try and get you out of it. no charge. i mean it's not like you went out there intentionally with having to be rescued in mind. even if you are a dumbass. charging for a rescue will keep me from calling for one. then you can charge my corpse when you find it.

i also know that national guard (who does most of the remote rescues here in alaska) use the rescues as training exercises.

plus what about the ships out in the bering sea in january fishing for crab and get in trouble? the coast guard goes out there for no charge.

i am however in favor of a voluntary hiker or climbers insurance. and i did say voluntary.

and don't get me started on hiking permits. i hate paying to go hike on public lands. i'm already paying my taxes for crying out loud. that should cover it. which is why i camp on the mesa tops and do pirate day trips into the canyons and dodge the rangers (i hate backcountry permits too), or enter nat. parks after the entrance station closes and leave the same time. otherwise its costs 20.00 to just drive straight through zion from st. george to mt. carmel.

SAY NO TO CHARGING FOR RESCUES!!!

[RedMan]

So can I have the SAR portion of my OHV fee back?

[Deathcricket]

[quote=Iceaxe]
You already pay for SAR through your taxes....

So... if your house catches on fire should you have to reimburse the fire department for their trouble? If you are involved in a traffic accident should you have to reimburse the police for their work? What about the IRS? Should I have to pay the wage of the guy who audits me?

Just sayin

[Iceaxe]

My only thought is that it's more similar to calling an ambulance when you have a heart attack.

You don't have the chain of events quite right with a heart attack.....

All cities are a little different but here is how it works in most cities around Salt lake....If you have a heart attack you call 911 and not an ambulance.... 911 will dispatch a paramedic crew, who in turn will call for an ambulance if one is needed to transport.... you are not charge for the 911 personal, any law enforcement that responds or for the paramedic crew that is dispatched. Many cities are contracted to private companies for their ambulance service.

The point is you have to differentiate between what is a public service and what is a private service..... in the heart attack the hospital and the ambulance (usually) are private companies.

Anyhoo.... When a private chopper is used in a rescue you will be sent a bill (your insurance may cover this). Same as when a private ambulance is used.... But SAR is a public service, same as the police officer and paramedic....

FWIW: my wife is an EMT with Gold Cross Ambulance, usually she is on an ambulance crew, sometimes she works life flight out of Primary Children's.

.

[Deathcricket]

Ok you are right! Free rescues for everyone.


Just not a fan of someone getting lost in the wilderness and expecting the "government" to come rescue them. But your argument is logical so I must concede victory. I still wanna tell that fool, you got lost, hurt, whatever. Pay for your services you used sucker! Ah well...


Edit: Ok ok one more idea! Like the article was saying how about a partial cost to the victim? Let's say like $500 to start? If you're out there in the wilderness and gonna die. $500 is nothing. Just some arbitrary number so they collect something but no so high people avoid calling in and die. There has to be some penalty for your actions right?

[Iceaxe]

There has to be some penalty for your actions right?

You mean like if you lend money on over inflated home loans???

Sweet.... that means the feds will pay you to get lost.

[coinslab]

Making you pay to hike anywhere is IDIOTIC. You might as well make us pay for the air we breath.

[denaliguide]

Making you pay to hike anywhere is IDIOTIC. You might as well make us pay for the air we breath.

believe me, there are politicians trying to figure out how to do just that somewhere. in new zealand they were trying to tax farmers on how much methane their livestock were contributing to the atmosphere. laughingly called the "fart tax".

[coinslab]

Yeah these laws are getting out of hand.