5 ms·

I'd love to see some actual statistics on this. This assumes that people knowingly do something dangerous and are choosing to ignore it because they think someo

I'd love to see some actual statistics on this. This assumes that people knowingly do something dangerous and are choosing to ignore it because they think someone can just come and save them. I would argue that this is unlikely, unprepared people are unprepared in all aspects of it. Carrying a cellphone doens't mean they thought of it as some kind of security measurement. People just rarely go somewhere without it. They simply don't know any better.

JarlUlvi 7y ago
It only takes one trip/slip/fall, one rock slide, one sprain, one break, one break, one deadfall, one snake, one asthma attack, one sting, or one rabid animal to turn an outdoor trip into a potential life or death situation. 99.99% of the times I've spend in the forest and desert has been "safe". It is the .01% and .001%s that get you.
- sneak 7y ago
  That’s why I have two PLBs. Two is one and one is none.
jxramos 7y ago
I heard some organizations try to collect fees from repeated offenders who tax search and rescue operations too frequently. Others collect under situations of negligence. https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly#close https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ...
- bluGill 7y ago
  I've heard of some organizations rejecting this because if it wasn't for all the unprepared people heading out and getting in over their head they would have to pay someone to go out an pretend to need rescued for training purposes. Having someone who really needs help is much better training than a planned mission - even if they shouldn't have needed help. Your mileage may vary, each rescue team has different situations. In some areas they get too many calls (remember a call takes the rescuers away from their family and other thing they would do instead) and should do something about those who didn't make at least some attempt to be prepared.
  - MayeulC 7y ago
    Well, that is an interesting take, but if collecting such a tax really helped reduce the number of people going out unprepared, thus needing help, it would really be a no-brainer to do so, as it could avoid people getting hurt or killed in the first place.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      Problem is people who know about the tax will refuse rescue if they think they can get out without paying it - thus killing more people because they refused the rescue.
  - japhyr 7y ago
    I've been involved in mountain rescue for almost 20 years now. The main reason I've heard over the years for not charging for rescue is that it causes people to delay asking for help. This results in more high-risk calls for rescuers, and worse outcomes for people in need of rescue. In most situations, the cost of a rescue is not nearly as significant as media accounts portray. People love to cite the cost of helicopters in USCG rescues. USCG pilots need to fly a certain number of hours; those hours can come from missions or training sessions. When they fly more missions, they reduce their training hours. Creating a rescue policy for really high-traffic areas like the most popular national parks is a different story. Those are outlier situations, and we shouldn't have the same policy for SAR in average rural areas that we do for popular national parks. Edit: I meant to add another reason for not charging for rescue. I have been on missions where we reached the missing person, and the person initially refused our help because they thought we were going to charge them. The same conversation played out on the mountain that we're seeing play out in the comments here. In the end, these people are very happy to receive the assistance they needed; they were not going to get out of the mountains on their own.
  - ISL 7y ago
    Colorado has an interesting approach to these concerns. https://www.colorado.gov/dola/search-and-rescue-fund https://www.colorado.gov/dola/search-and-rescue-fund The state has set up a voluntary contribution system where hikers and other recreationalists can purchase a search-and-rescue card. Hunting/fishing licenses, off-highway vehicle permits, and other similar permits also contribute to the fund. These cards are not mandatory for rescue, but rather, if a card/permit-holder is rescued, the localities' rescue costs are defrayed by the state fund.

JarlUlvi 7y ago

It only takes one trip/slip/fall, one rock slide, one sprain, one break, one break, one deadfall, one snake, one asthma attack, one sting, or one rabid animal to turn an outdoor trip into a potential life or death situation. 99.99% of the times I've spend in the forest and desert has been "safe". It is the .01% and .001%s that get you.

sneak 7y ago
That’s why I have two PLBs. Two is one and one is none.

jxramos 7y ago

I heard some organizations try to collect fees from repeated offenders who tax search and rescue operations too frequently. Others collect under situations of negligence. https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly#close https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ...

bluGill 7y ago
I've heard of some organizations rejecting this because if it wasn't for all the unprepared people heading out and getting in over their head they would have to pay someone to go out an pretend to need rescued for training purposes. Having someone who really needs help is much better training than a planned mission - even if they shouldn't have needed help. Your mileage may vary, each rescue team has different situations. In some areas they get too many calls (remember a call takes the rescuers away from their family and other thing they would do instead) and should do something about those who didn't make at least some attempt to be prepared.
- MayeulC 7y ago
  Well, that is an interesting take, but if collecting such a tax really helped reduce the number of people going out unprepared, thus needing help, it would really be a no-brainer to do so, as it could avoid people getting hurt or killed in the first place.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Problem is people who know about the tax will refuse rescue if they think they can get out without paying it - thus killing more people because they refused the rescue.
- japhyr 7y ago
  I've been involved in mountain rescue for almost 20 years now. The main reason I've heard over the years for not charging for rescue is that it causes people to delay asking for help. This results in more high-risk calls for rescuers, and worse outcomes for people in need of rescue. In most situations, the cost of a rescue is not nearly as significant as media accounts portray. People love to cite the cost of helicopters in USCG rescues. USCG pilots need to fly a certain number of hours; those hours can come from missions or training sessions. When they fly more missions, they reduce their training hours. Creating a rescue policy for really high-traffic areas like the most popular national parks is a different story. Those are outlier situations, and we shouldn't have the same policy for SAR in average rural areas that we do for popular national parks. Edit: I meant to add another reason for not charging for rescue. I have been on missions where we reached the missing person, and the person initially refused our help because they thought we were going to charge them. The same conversation played out on the mountain that we're seeing play out in the comments here. In the end, these people are very happy to receive the assistance they needed; they were not going to get out of the mountains on their own.
- ISL 7y ago
  Colorado has an interesting approach to these concerns. https://www.colorado.gov/dola/search-and-rescue-fund https://www.colorado.gov/dola/search-and-rescue-fund The state has set up a voluntary contribution system where hikers and other recreationalists can purchase a search-and-rescue card. Hunting/fishing licenses, off-highway vehicle permits, and other similar permits also contribute to the fund. These cards are not mandatory for rescue, but rather, if a card/permit-holder is rescued, the localities' rescue costs are defrayed by the state fund.