3 ms·

I don't recall any credible cases where someone was charged by a search and rescue organization. Some other organizations might (AMR has recently started showin

I don't recall any credible cases where someone was charged by a search and rescue organization. Some other organizations might (AMR has recently started showing up at calls and charging for the kind of basic first aid that SAR traditionally has provided for free), but in general it's SAR policy not to charge even when the person involved made some really bone-headed decisions. See for example https://www.reddit.com/r/searchandrescue/comments/8gv3n3/thoughts_missing_hiker_warned_he_may_likely_be/ https://www.reddit.com/r/searchandrescue/comments/8gv3n3/tho... If you get air-ambulanced, yes, you'll probably end up with a hefty bill for that and your insurance company probably has a clause exempting them from paying it. REACH (https://reachair.com/membership/ https://reachair.com/membership/) and AirMedCare (https://www.airmedcarenetwork.com/ https://www.airmedcarenetwork.com/) both provide affordable insurance for this. But if it's CHP or air national guard that picks you up, you shouldn't expect to get a bill for it. Pilots need flight hours and ground SAR personnel need regular training. There are a handful of areas where SAR might get a bit over-worked now and again, but usually more calls are better than no calls. Yes, the rescues incur some cost, but a significant amount of that cost is covered by the SAR volunteers themselves. And yes, it is a way to "meet some cool folks". Obviously I don't mean go out and call for a rescue if you don't need one, but talk to any SAR volunteer and they'll almost universally say the same thing: they'd rather people call sooner than later, and they're happy to walk out with them. The call-outs that get really expensive are the ones where somebody disappears and SAR has got no damn clue where they went. Those can stretch on for several days before the search is suspended, can consume multiple air resources, and increases the risk of injury for volunteers. In many of those cases, the search would've ended successfully far earlier if someone involved had called as soon as they thought there was trouble.

codingdave 8y ago
New Hampshire is one of the ones that bills, yes. Over 70K in bills over the last 10 years. They aren't the only state that does it. I'm glad you are in CA where it is free, but that is not universal. It has been a hot topic of discussion for years, but there is no universal answer, and people have been billed. Yes, the culture is that people want to help, and that it should be free, but the entire reason that some state laws allow billing, as well as the reason for insurance plans to exist, is because there is a cost which needs to be paid. Your original comment was not obvious in its intent to say that SAR folks are cool. It sounded like a superficial recommendation to go out and be safe, and to call SAR early and often because they are a free and 100% reliable safety net. You clearly know enough to know that isn't true.
- ghaff 8y ago
  So NH has billed a whopping $7,000 a year over the past 10 years. Yes, they charge in some cases--there was a weird recent one where they took a donation in lieu of billing someone. But these cases are ones that make the newspapers. It's not at all common.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  New Hampshire is not just "one of the ones that bills", they are very nearly the only one that charges for rescues. A few other states have passed laws allowing them to charge for rescues, but they rarely or don't at all act on it, and a few popular areas with very small tax bases charge for rescues but they too are exceptions. [1] This is the definition of "the exception that proves the rule". By contrast, the attitude at the statewide SAR conferences I've attended, and from SAR volunteers I've talked to across the country and in Canada, and from official statements from the National Association for Search And Rescue, and other agencies, are all opposed to charging people for rescues, and for good reasons. Like the official statement from the national Mountain Rescue Association says: "...no one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges. We ask all outdoors groups and organizations to join us in sending this mountain safety education message." [2] And as the former president of the Colorado Search and Rescue board says, "...people, fearing costs, have refused rescue despite grim injuries: a climber who hobbled down a 3,000-ft. mountain with a broken ankle; a woman who set out on her own to locate her missing husband; a lost and bewildered runner who hid from rescue crews. 'We know that when people believe that they are going to receive a large bill for a SAR mission, they delay a call for help or they refuse to call for help'". [3] One of the most frustrating messages we have to continually get out to the public is that it's okay to call for search and rescue and that they should not expect to be charged for it. Every hour that someone is lost or endangered and delays calling for rescue adds to the size and complexity of the operation. We want search operations to be small, easy, and fast, and the only way for that to happen is for people to call sooner rather than later. New Hampshire's policy is screwing with that messaging and fuck them for that. I would also refuse to volunteer my expertise to any agency that charges people for being rescued. If the agency's gonna collect, I expect to get my cut too. I volunteer to keep it free for the subjects of the search. The attitude that people should pay for rescues tends to come from the same people that are quick to forget their own mishaps and quicker still to criticize others from the safety of their own spotless decision-making. There's at least a couple of these people that show up to every fundraiser or other public event to say, "maybe you shouldn't rescue people that made bad decisions." I really don't respect those folks. There are already a lot of public safety services that do not directly charge the people involved in the incidents they respond to. This is a debate the country has already had and settled: you generally don't get charged for calling police or fire. New Hampshire ought to consider applying their charge-for-response approach to those agencies too and see how that works out for 'em. > Your original comment was not obvious in its intent to say that SAR folks are cool. It sounded like a superficial recommendation to go out and be safe, and to call SAR early and often because they are a free and 100% reliable safety net. You clearly know enough to know that isn't true. Yes, SAR folks are cool -- I mean in that most of them are friendly, capable, and professional, and want people to get home in good condition. But the rest of your interpretation is fine too. I do in fact recommend that people go out (and have fun) and be safe, and call SAR early and often, because it should be free, and because it's a more reliable safety net when the calls come in earlier instead of later. You may view that as "superficial", if you want, but I put a significant amount of my own time and money into making it true. [1]: https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ... [2]: http://mra.org/what-is-mras-position-on-charging-for-search-and-rescue/ http://mra.org/what-is-mras-position-on-charging-for-search-... [3]: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,0...

codingdave 8y ago

New Hampshire is one of the ones that bills, yes. Over 70K in bills over the last 10 years. They aren't the only state that does it. I'm glad you are in CA where it is free, but that is not universal. It has been a hot topic of discussion for years, but there is no universal answer, and people have been billed. Yes, the culture is that people want to help, and that it should be free, but the entire reason that some state laws allow billing, as well as the reason for insurance plans to exist, is because there is a cost which needs to be paid. Your original comment was not obvious in its intent to say that SAR folks are cool. It sounded like a superficial recommendation to go out and be safe, and to call SAR early and often because they are a free and 100% reliable safety net. You clearly know enough to know that isn't true.

ghaff 8y ago
So NH has billed a whopping $7,000 a year over the past 10 years. Yes, they charge in some cases--there was a weird recent one where they took a donation in lieu of billing someone. But these cases are ones that make the newspapers. It's not at all common.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
New Hampshire is not just "one of the ones that bills", they are very nearly the only one that charges for rescues. A few other states have passed laws allowing them to charge for rescues, but they rarely or don't at all act on it, and a few popular areas with very small tax bases charge for rescues but they too are exceptions. [1] This is the definition of "the exception that proves the rule". By contrast, the attitude at the statewide SAR conferences I've attended, and from SAR volunteers I've talked to across the country and in Canada, and from official statements from the National Association for Search And Rescue, and other agencies, are all opposed to charging people for rescues, and for good reasons. Like the official statement from the national Mountain Rescue Association says: "...no one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges. We ask all outdoors groups and organizations to join us in sending this mountain safety education message." [2] And as the former president of the Colorado Search and Rescue board says, "...people, fearing costs, have refused rescue despite grim injuries: a climber who hobbled down a 3,000-ft. mountain with a broken ankle; a woman who set out on her own to locate her missing husband; a lost and bewildered runner who hid from rescue crews. 'We know that when people believe that they are going to receive a large bill for a SAR mission, they delay a call for help or they refuse to call for help'". [3] One of the most frustrating messages we have to continually get out to the public is that it's okay to call for search and rescue and that they should not expect to be charged for it. Every hour that someone is lost or endangered and delays calling for rescue adds to the size and complexity of the operation. We want search operations to be small, easy, and fast, and the only way for that to happen is for people to call sooner rather than later. New Hampshire's policy is screwing with that messaging and fuck them for that. I would also refuse to volunteer my expertise to any agency that charges people for being rescued. If the agency's gonna collect, I expect to get my cut too. I volunteer to keep it free for the subjects of the search. The attitude that people should pay for rescues tends to come from the same people that are quick to forget their own mishaps and quicker still to criticize others from the safety of their own spotless decision-making. There's at least a couple of these people that show up to every fundraiser or other public event to say, "maybe you shouldn't rescue people that made bad decisions." I really don't respect those folks. There are already a lot of public safety services that do not directly charge the people involved in the incidents they respond to. This is a debate the country has already had and settled: you generally don't get charged for calling police or fire. New Hampshire ought to consider applying their charge-for-response approach to those agencies too and see how that works out for 'em. > Your original comment was not obvious in its intent to say that SAR folks are cool. It sounded like a superficial recommendation to go out and be safe, and to call SAR early and often because they are a free and 100% reliable safety net. You clearly know enough to know that isn't true. Yes, SAR folks are cool -- I mean in that most of them are friendly, capable, and professional, and want people to get home in good condition. But the rest of your interpretation is fine too. I do in fact recommend that people go out (and have fun) and be safe, and call SAR early and often, because it should be free, and because it's a more reliable safety net when the calls come in earlier instead of later. You may view that as "superficial", if you want, but I put a significant amount of my own time and money into making it true. [1]: https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ... [2]: http://mra.org/what-is-mras-position-on-charging-for-search-and-rescue/ http://mra.org/what-is-mras-position-on-charging-for-search-... [3]: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,00.html http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892621,0...