Although it's not true everywhere, in our area we have professional firefighters, paid through property taxes. This is a form of "rescue insurance" that is mandated by the society.

Other forms therefore have a precedent and it's a matter of changing cultural attitudes to make it clear to people that such precautions are worth the investment. To the extent that volunteers may be involved in rescue operations, their out-of-pocket costs could be reimbursed this way.

One thing that I believe to be something of a red herring is the risk to the rescuers. In general (for wilderness situations involving mountain rescue groups, at least), they're experienced, capable, and well-equipped, and there's no doubt that they're extremely cautious. It's too much to say that they relish their rescue operations, but they wouldn't be doing this work if they didn't like it in some sense. They see it as a responsibility, and they take it seriously.

Sure, there will always be people who go out unprepared (the Kims, for example) and unaware of the potential risks, and there's not much that can be done either for or with them. But there are also many people who are candidates for rescue insurance, provided such a thing were mandated and accepted as part of our approach to this whole thing. Such thinking could be applied to a wide variety of situations in which people in trouble now receive "free" help when they need it. HPH

 

The same is true of Search and Rescue. As I pointed out, the parts of the organization that are paid for are sheriffs and rangers and military personnel -- so yes, we pay for this "insurance" in our taxes.

And the vast majority of rescue costs are not for climbers. They are for people like the Kims, or teens inner-tubing rivers, or little kids who wander away from the family picnic. And most of all, they are for drivers who have car crashes on the highways. The same people use much of the same equipment and training for this sort of work. If you want climbers to have to carry rescue insurance, will you stick the parents for a search and rescue bill when their five year-old has wandered away and fallen down a well? Is it something you want to add to your car insurance tab?

I've also mostly refrained from mentioning that people who live in hurricane zones ought to be really careful about whether or not they want the government to start charging people for the costs of rescues.

 

There's one other consideration that has not been brought up yet. If a rescue is a paid, professional service, then what if it is unsuccessful? Can we sue for damages? And if the conditions are very dangerous, can we say, "I'm paying you to do this rescue, so do it"? In the current setup, since it is all volunteer and done entirely at the discretion of the rescuers, they are also not liable if they decide to not undertake the rescue or if they mess it up.

 

Why? People need to take ownership of the risks they assume, whether those risks are associated with recreation or with where they live. A good example of this is the risk of wildfire to people with homes in the forests of the intermountain west. Others, such as building on seismic faults or in the coastal zone of areas prone to tropical cyclones, are easy to list.

It used to be that everyone who lived in rural Kansas had a tornado cellar. How many do now, do you suppose? HPH

 

Because I didn't want it to sound like me v. you.

 

Mike,
since you appear to be a climber, does anyone carry EPIRB units with them when they climb? I don't know how heavy, bulky costly etc. they tend to be but certainly would have been invaluable for these poor souls.

 

The indemnification issue has precedent in the way the National Weather Service is held harmless for forecasts (of omission or commission) that don't validate. No one will ever sue successfully if an unpredicted hurricane comes their way, or if a predicted one doesn't and they spend money preparing. There are legal protections involved with setting this up, of course, but it's a nice precedent that could apply to rescuers.

I think the real issue is that we Americans have been living in a society that, on the one hand, encourages people to think of themselves as individuals at the center of the universe and, on the other, is on a perpetual search for victims, so that no one is held accountable for their actions. "Oh, woe is me, I'm just an innocent billionaire whose mansion on the beach was washed away in the storm surge, please bail me out," is what sells laundry detergent and hemorrhoid salve. And politicians who don't bail them out are attacked as failures. Go figure. HPH

 

Not usually. In most cases for climbers the problem isn't really finding someone, it is getting to them.

If they were light enough, perhaps more people would carry them. But part of this is the mindset of the climber, which is that you don't go out expecting that rescue will come. You go out expecting that rescue will not come, so you have to make sure it is not needed. If you do get rescued, you are grateful for your luck and the hard, risky work of others.

Many climbers do not take cell phones or radios. It's not that they want to die, but they want to be self-sufficient. If they were the type of people who called 911 for every problem, they wouldn't be climbers. Others think that with cell phones as light as they are now, it only makes sense to have one.

But the reality is that, as in this case, often a cell phone just means you might be able to tell people that you are in trouble. It doesn't mean anyone will be able to rescue you.

 

That's part of why people go climbing. Gravity always holds you accountable for your actions. Some people like that sort of experience, because the flip side is that when you are successful, you know the mountains weren't playing any favorites.

The chance that you might not succeed is what makes the success so sweet.

 

ya can't repeal the law of physics.