EISPIRATEN

This article about Mt Baldy rescues recently appeared.

http://www.sbsun.com/lifestyle/20170317 ... ail-safety

I learned something new in this paragraph. Out of county residents have their home counties billed for rescue costs - not the victims, but their county governments.

The estimated average cost for a search and rescue is less than $10,000. San Bernardino County residents needing assistance aren’t charged. Other counties are charged if their residents must be rescued, said Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Jodi Miller.

Yeah, a state law was passed in 2015 that allow counties to charge their own up to $12,000(indexed to inflation). Orange and San Diego are ready to charge.

Counties also pay for those mutual aid agreements. So if you are a S.D. resident and get SAR'd in J-Tree, which is done by SanBern, you could get a bill....or at least S.D. is paying SanBern even though the NPS doesnt charge anyone.

Wow, a step in the right direction, though the bill should go the folks that made the decision to get themselves in a position to be rescued. Not so much for true accidents, floods disasters etc., if you want to play stupid games you should also be willing to pay for the cost.

Personally, I do not think public money, i.e., taxpayer dollars, should be used to underwrite things like extreme mountain biking, extreme dirt biking/ORV, bungee jumping, base jumping, extreme skiing etc.

Gene wrote: ↑Wow, a step in the right direction, though the bill should go the folks that made the decision to get themselves in a position to be rescued. Not so much for true accidents, floods disasters etc., if you want to play stupid games you should also be willing to pay for the cost.

Personally, I do not think public money, i.e., taxpayer dollars, should be used to underwrite things like extreme mountain biking, extreme dirt biking/ORV, bungee jumping, base jumping, extreme skiing etc.

Define extreme vs. non-extreme.

whatmeworry wrote: ↑

Gene wrote: ↑Wow, a step in the right direction, though the bill should go the folks that made the decision to get themselves in a position to be rescued. Not so much for true accidents, floods disasters etc., if you want to play stupid games you should also be willing to pay for the cost.

Personally, I do not think public money, i.e., taxpayer dollars, should be used to underwrite things like extreme mountain biking, extreme dirt biking/ORV, bungee jumping, base jumping, extreme skiing etc.

Define extreme vs. non-extreme.

Good point, all of them until some sort of standard can be set. Just watch the sport of extreme skiing, essentially jumping off a now covered cliff. You want to do that, be my guest, just don't ask for public money to pay for your rescue and the treatment of your injuries.

whatmeworry wrote: ↑

Gene wrote: ↑Personally, I do not think public money, i.e., taxpayer dollars, should be used to underwrite things like extreme mountain biking, extreme dirt biking/ORV, bungee jumping, base jumping, extreme skiing etc.

Define extreme vs. non-extreme.

"Extreme" is partly relative to skill level. For the giggling girls who recently got pulled out of Las Flores, following a trail was apparently an extreme challenge. I think our taxes should go toward saving lives in the mountains. But maybe there is a threshold of recklessness at which point people are fined for a misdemeanor. This could be for small things like not carrying enough water and food on the Skyline Trail in summertime. Or bigger things like climbing up a cliff that you can't climb down.

Sean wrote: ↑ "Extreme" is partly relative to skill level. For the giggling girls who recently got pulled out of Las Flores, following a trail was apparently an extreme challenge. I think our taxes should go toward saving lives in the mountains. But maybe there is a threshold of recklessness at which point people are fined for a misdemeanor. This could be for small things like not carrying enough water and food on the Skyline Trail in summertime. Or bigger things like climbing up a cliff that you can't climb down.

I agree completely, but I think it generally isn't done more because of logistics than politics. Unless you charge everyone, even legitimate victims, you have to define who will be charged and under what circumstances. That means that you have to spend money investigating the incident, and perhaps going to court to prove the outcome of the investigation should a person refuse to pay. Those costs could easily exceed the cost of the rescue very quickly.

Gene wrote: ↑ Good point, all of them until some sort of standard can be set. Just watch the sport of extreme skiing, essentially jumping off a now covered cliff. You want to do that, be my guest, just don't ask for public money to pay for your rescue and the treatment of your injuries.

That's a valid observation, but how many rescues do you see because of extreme skiing and similar activity? From what I see, the vast majority of rescues involve regular folks engaged in what I would not characterize as pretty ordinary activity. Dumb sometimes, but not extreme.

Search and rescue exists for a reason just like the Highway Patrol. I don't believe we charge folks for making dumb decisions on the road that warrants intervention by the CHP (yet), and we shouldn't do it with Search and Rescue. Folks shouldn't have to choose between dying/becoming seriously injured or paying a huge bill they can't afford simply because they perhaps make an error in judgment, or don't make an error in judgment but find themselves in a predicament (e.g., Ellen's recent "adventure"). That's just bad policy in my view.

In terms of cost to the taxpayer, there's a lot of places our tax dollars go that perhaps we don't like, but it's like my mom used to say to me as kid: it's what you do as a contributing member of society.

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑

Gene wrote: ↑ Good point, all of them until some sort of standard can be set. Just watch the sport of extreme skiing, essentially jumping off a now covered cliff. You want to do that, be my guest, just don't ask for public money to pay for your rescue and the treatment of your injuries.

That's a valid observation, but how many rescues do you see because of extreme skiing and similar activity? From what I see, the vast majority of rescues involve regular folks engaged in what I would not characterize as pretty ordinary activity. Dumb sometimes, but not extreme.

Search and rescue exists for a reason just like the Highway Patrol. I don't believe we charge folks for making dumb decisions on the road that warrants intervention by the CHP (yet), and we shouldn't do it with Search and Rescue. Folks shouldn't have to choose between dying/becoming seriously injured or paying a huge bill they can't afford simply because they perhaps make an error in judgment, or don't make an error in judgment but find themselves in a predicament (e.g., Ellen's recent "adventure"). That's just bad policy in my view.

In terms of cost to the taxpayer, there's a lot of places our tax dollars go that perhaps we don't like, but it's like my mom used to say to me as kid: it's what you do as a contributing member of society.

It's a matter of personal responsibility. We most certainly do charge folks for making bad decisions on the road, the CHP issues citations and your actions could be examined in a courtroom. I'm not advocating hikers police, but at some point personal responsibility must come into play. To give it another face, when a camper builds an open fire that burns thousands of acres do they get an, "Oh well." for bad judgement?

The costs do not stop with rescue, they continue with hospitalization, rehabilitation and lost work time. There has to be a point of intolerance for public funding of stupidity.

People have a basic right to be foolish, they do not have a right to take the rest of us along, neither physically or financeally.

There has to be a point of intolerance for public funding of stupidity.

I might give you that, but what is that point? And who is going to be the arbiter of what is stupid, what is not stupid but reckless, what is not reckless but simply negligent, what is risky but not necessarily negligent, and what is none of the above? Is the test going to be if you need rescue then you were stupid regardless of circumstances? You can conjure up all sorts of examples. What about the middle-aged guy who after too many years of eating burgers and drinking beer takes up hiking, decides to try the Ski Hut trail, has a heart attack on the way up, and has to be rescued? He's not engaging in any sort of activity that most people would call "extreme," but what about stupidity? Should he be charged because he maybe exhibited poor judgment in tackling a hike that was a bit beyond his fitness capabilities? I personally don't think so, but some would call him "stupid."

The point it I think it's very easy to say we're not going to publicly fund "stupid" but very difficult to implement, at least on any reasonable basis.

And if we're going to charge folks for their own rescues, then what really is the point in having publicly funded SAR? Just eliminate it altogether and let the private sector flood in and offer the same services...for a price.

We most certainly do charge folks for making bad decisions on the road, the CHP issues citations and your actions could be examined in a courtroom.

Well that's really the difference ain't it? Someone's bad decisions are adjudicated in a courtroom before they are penalized. In other words, there's some established process in place where some neutral third party looks at all the facts and circumstances and determines that the person made a bad decision before a penalty is imposed. Maybe that happens with the cost of a rescue (I candidly don't know), but it sounds to me like the decision about whether to charge or not charge someone is made by "someone" on a more ad hoc basis.

There is always a "price" regardless of how it is paid, either by the individual rescued or by the general public. There is no such thing as government funds.

An independent arbiter the rescue agency could consult if they see a particular rescue as out of the norm sounds like a good idea. A nominal fee charged to all rescues is another idea.

There is a somewhat parallel to the rescue issue, the use and abuse of ambulance services as taxi.

SGBob wrote: ↑I agree completely, but I think it generally isn't done more because of logistics than politics. Unless you charge everyone, even legitimate victims, you have to define who will be charged and under what circumstances. That means that you have to spend money investigating the incident, and perhaps going to court to prove the outcome of the investigation should a person refuse to pay. Those costs could easily exceed the cost of the rescue very quickly.

I'm sure an objective law could be formulated to define what is reckless versus accidental. There are already laws like this for other activities like driving. I believe it's the moral way to deal with such problems that don't involve actual felonies, yet incur a cost on society in general. People know that if they drive recklessly on the roads, they might be ticketed and fined. They still drive recklessly. But at least they are compelled to pay for their poor behavior in a way that potentially will teach them a lesson. Plus, society can track the reckless drivers and increase the level of punishment with each subsequent infraction, if need be. A similar system could be set up for reckless hikers.

Unfortunately, there is probably a legal and jurisdictional conflict with this idea, since the national forest is federal land, yet most rescues are conducted by local or county agencies.

Texas Parks and Wildlife (Game Wardens) issue citations for criminal offenses for which fines are assessed by the court and TPWD assesses civil restitution. I am not advocating for licenses for outdoor activity that does not directly take natural resources but there seems to be something here that parallels rescue cost, personal judgment, and criminal behavior.

"In addition to the criminal penalty for hunting and fishing violations, the department will seek the civil recovery value for the loss or damage to wildlife resources. The civil restitution cost is payable to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and is in addition to the fine assessed by the court. Failure to pay the civil recovery value will result in the department's refusal to issue a license, tag, or permit. An individual who hunts or fishes after the refusal commits a Class A misdemeanor which is punishable by a fine not less than $500 or more than $4,000; punishment in jail not to exceed one year; or both fine and confinement."

Our tax dollars cover a lot of stupid situations. If you are smoking in bed and set your house on fire, the fire dept still comes to put it out. It's annoying when you see people in generally accepted high risk activities like wing suit flying or BASE jumping getting expensive rescues. But, the general public might think that hiking Mt. Baldy in winter is a high risk activity. Who decides if Ellen gets a bill?

Sean wrote: ↑ I'm sure an objective law could be formulated to define what is reckless versus accidental.

The ban of off-trail . Only nanny state activities approved, per the outdoor tourism lobby. If there is any possibility of being hurt that can be imagined, that means you will be hurt and its legally a reckless mentally ill activity.If the outdoor companies cant explain it and sell it in 15 seconds , its still a bit taboo and racist,etc.

In the OC, at the time of the 'hiking' duo, the outdoors was to be left alone and only weirdos go there. Thus the worst SAR in modern Socal history and declaring this law to be the answer. Quietly though, the OC police have started to acquire outdoor awareness, instead of focusing on being big brother. http://behindthebadgeoc.com/cities/ocsd ... ting-ranch "The three hikers will not have to pay for the rescue. Any rescues by the OCSD are considered emergency services, and the OCSD does not charge individuals for that."

As an under the poverty line backpacker I would seriously risk my life to avoid paying $10000. Many people would. So hikers would be dying just cuz of financial status.

If you donate ( http://www.rmru.org/donate.htm ) a little money to Riverside Mountain Rescue Unit (which handles the San Jacintos and the rock climbing areas near Idyllwild), they'll send you their newsletter, with extremely interesting writeups on every mission.

I don't think it's helpful to generalize about people who need to be rescued. Some are doing inherently dangerous stuff, some are not. Some have made bad decisions, some haven't. Some lack the skills and experience for what they're attempting, some don't.

But we should also keep in mind that search and rescue work can be dangerous , and that helicopter rescues are inherently very expensive.

whatmeworry wrote:

> Define extreme vs. non-extreme.

Yeah, a good example is trad climbing (a type of rock climbing). It's not inherently an unreasonably dangerous sport, but there is some risk that can't be eliminated, no matter how skilled and experienced you are. For instance, people get killed by rock fall sometimes, and there can be situations where you simply can't protect yourself against that.

Rudy Rodriguez wrote:

> As an under the poverty line backpacker I would seriously risk my life to avoid paying $10000. Many people would. So hikers would be dying just cuz of financial status.

You make a good point, but one could also argue that poor and working-class people who don't go to the mountains should not have to pay through their taxes for a $10k helicopter rescue for someone who's affluent and could afford to pay. The whole question of what government activities should be tax-subsidized is a classic political debate in left versus right economic policy, and the answers are inherently subjective.

People will die if they charge for rescues, so it's simply morally impossible to do so. If they charge, people won't call. I'd rather some of my tax money go to people making an occasional mistake than saving a couple dollars and letting them die.

Also, charging people like you would with a traffic ticket infers there's anything reasonable about traffic tickets. Millionaires and people in poverty are charged the same amount, which is not at all an equal punishment. A traffic ticket could ruin a poor person and means literally nothing to a rich person. One person is being penalized way too harshly and the other one way too lightly.

And saying that people who don't recreate shouldn't have to pay for people who do is a slippery slope. I don't have children but I pay for other people's children to go to school. Everyone is going to use up some tax money somewhere.

@VermillionPearlGirl : A lot of what you're saying is more an expression of general left-wing views on economic policy than an analysis of this particular problem.

> People will die if they charge for rescues, so it's simply morally impossible to do so.

There are lots of ways in which trade-offs can be made and have to be made between human life and economics. For example, as a runner I feel like many of the speed limits in my town are too high, causing my life to be in danger. I would like them to be lower. If human life was of infinite value compared to a dollar bill, then we would make the speed limit 2 miles per hour, because I think that's about the speed where an impact by a car can't kill a person, even a fragile old person. But of course that would have devastating economic effects.

Keep in mind also that rescues can be extremely dangerous for rescuers, so encouraging more rescues is not an absolute good in terms of preserving human life.

I'm against charging people for mountain rescues. Not because they might not call 911 in the event of an emergency if they had to pay. But because who's to say they haven't already paid for it?

We are taxed our whole lives in various ways. Is it our fault that the government wastes most of that money on socialist programs, overpriced supplies and services, and other nonsense? If you support socialism, then I guess it's partly your fault. But it's not mine. So if I ever need rescue from the mountains, it'll be my fault for needing a rescue. But it won't be my fault that my rescue taxes were already wasted on some less critical program or service.

I don't use the argument that people won't call for help if they know they'll be charged for rescue. First, I don't know if that's actually true to a degree that matters much. And second, even if it's true, that argument shifts the fundamental responsibility for some stranger's life onto me. And that's the moral theory that leads to socialism, which I reject.

Well, this discussion has turned to people staking out political positions on the economic left-right spectrum. Counting down to the first use of the word "Nazi." 10 ...9 ... 8...

Sean wrote:
> I'm against charging people for mountain rescues. Not because they might not call 911 in the event of an emergency if they had to pay. But because who's to say they haven't already paid for it?

Definition of a liberal: someone who wants a government handout.
Definition of a conservative: someone who wants a government handout and wants to make sure nobody else gets one.

Sean, you seem to have invented a new flavor: someone who doesn't want a government handout, especially because he suspects that he already paid for it.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of socialism, or I like it only in small doses. One form of socialism that I really love is public restrooms at trailheads.

bcrowell wrote:Sean, you seem to have invented a new flavor: someone who doesn't want a government handout, especially because he suspects that he already paid for it.

That pretty much gets to the central issue. Is it a handout if you already paid for it? The problem is that once the government takes your tax money, it's not really your money anymore. So someone else decides what you have paid for. I'd like to think that emergency life-saving services would take priority, but clearly that's not the case if we're charging for mountain rescues. Priority seems to reside in socializing entire industries like education and health care.

Also, I recognize that not all socialists are Nazis. So unless you're promoting a white supremacists brand of socialism, I'm not going to call you a Nazi. I simply believe this particular issue boils down to your moral view of taxation.

Sean wrote: Also, I recognize that not all socialists are Nazis. So unless you're promoting a white supremacists brand of socialism, I'm not going to call you a Nazi. I simply believe this particular issue boils down to your moral view of taxation.

I was trying to make a joke, but humor doesn't always come across clearly on the internet. Actually I think this thread has been surprisingly civil and rational.