I don’t have it with me at the moment, but in John Krakauer’s Eiger Dreams, he has a section on Denali that mentions a blowhard Romanian climber who had to rescued. He stiffed the rescue team on the bill and returned to the mountain a few years later to try again. This would indicate that people who need rescues from Denail do get billed, but the collection may not have the backing of law.
Not just for off-piste skiing. At the bottom of the Telecabin in Les Houches, there is a sign detailing the charges for First Aid, Recovery and Rescue. When I fell and bounced my shoulder out-and-in I just kept on going, mostly because it wasn’t that big a deal (but very painful), partly because I was determined to get off the mountain under my own steam to avoid paying.
Si
“But Officer, I could tell that the water was shallow – it only came halfway up the ducks!”
IMO, they should be charged full cost.
As it stands right now, the cost of rescue is paid for by the NH Fish & Game dept, but funded by hunters & anglers, rather than those needing rescue. I’m sure that a rare hunter/angler needs rescue, but in my years in NH, I’ve not heard of anyone but a lost hiker needing rescue.
Yet another unfunded mandate. Fish & Game barely has enough funds to do what it’s originally charged to do, that being protecting/managing wildlife, and enforcing fishing & hunting regulations.
why is it that people always seem to think the death of a moron is a bad thing. seriously if you are dumb enough to go some place potentialy dangerous, dumb enough to lack in training and or gear needed to survive in that place, AND dumb enough to get your ass into a situation that requires others to come to your aid AND dumb enough not to call for said help because it might cost you some money then you my friend deserve to die in the cold wet hard to reach place you dragged yourself off to.
I personally say charge anyone doing anything thats off the usual safe use for the area in question. and for people doing the inherently dangerous they should just expect it as part of the sport.
As Telemark says, there are signs saying that they’ll charge you for rescue in the Grand Canyon, but they don’t specify amounts. I can’t help but think that that’s a good idea. You get so many tourists there that have never, even been exposed to nature, and they automatically assume that because you’re in a national park it’s just like being on your 1/2 acre back home, and so they become dangerous to themselves. I myself, the avid outdoorsman, had a near incident there myself in '05.
Back in September I had another near incident in the back woods of Ontario – really, really remote. A killer storm came by, we were on an island, and I was in charge of four perfectly, innocent, know-nothing-about-the-woods, don’t-even-speak-English people. The only two thoughts going through my mind at the time whilst trees were falling all over the place were (1) What’s the press going to say about me having gotten killed four foreigners, and (2) How much are they going to charge me for the airlift?
gonzomax, paying for a new telephone pole is all about liability for property damage, though, The State of Michigan doesn’t own those poles. Some power/telephone/cable company does. Your insurance should cover it under your property damage coverage. That’s how it worked for me when I mercilessly destroyed a no-parking sign with my car one wintery day.
Because everyone is a moron sooner or later. All it takes for a perfectly well prepared and experienced hiker to become a evac victim is a badly placed step and a tib-fib fracture. Most rescues are for relatively simple things that are a big problem when you’re on top of a mountain. It doesn’t have to be mid-winter on Mt Hood.
Making a foolish or naive mistake shouldn’t cost you your life. The rescue personal (who here in the north east are mostly volunteer) want you to call for help if there’s a problem. They much prefer helping wounded people off mountains then hauling bodies down.
You could just as easily say “Why bother rescuing people from burning high rises? They were morons for choosing to live up there.”
EDIT: Having re-read your post I see that’s not exactly what you were saying. And to some degree I agree with you about charging for those rescues. But I’d rather save their sorry butts and deal with the consequences later.
Hey, I never said that. I’m just repeating what’s been said about why agencies balk at the idea of charge-for rescue.
I think the case-by-case approach is also a very good one. Only extreme neglegence will have your case evaluated. As Telemark said anyone can make a huge mistake. Mis-read a map (or lose it) or go out based on a really inaccurate weather report, but in the case of the “Bumbling Brit” to be rescued in dire straits after leaving a marked trail wearing no hat, with no water, no sunblock, and only sandals on his feet… and then go out again (rumour has it he was looking for a wallet or something he’d dropped the first time) only a couple of days later – the guy should have ponied up the money to cover his second rescue costs.
Bad luck can catch up with an experience and careful person, but sheer outright stupidity and utter recklessness, like the Bumbling Brit’s, should result in some kind of fees.
You would not have to pay anything. In Ontario, rescues are free, for we don’t want people getting in worse situations by not calling for help when they need it simply out of a desire to avoid a fee. Also, people who live up here expect basic services – if you can get rescued after a car crash or after a slip and fall on a sidewalk in southern Ontario, then you should also be able to get rescued while working or playing in the bush up here in the north. We don’t have any moron magnets in Ontario that attract large numbers of people who get in difficulty, such as places like the Grand Canyon do, and so many people in Ontario play in the outdoors, particularly in the north, that there is no great reason to single out one type of activity for penalty.
If you were in a “really, really remote” area in Ontario, a Canadian Forces plane would fly out from Trenton (the south-east corner of the province – very roughly a thousand kilometers from the remote north-west region of the province) to spot you and drop a radio and emergency supplies. If necessary, a helicopter would follow it, and perform the rescue. For non-remote rescues, the Ontario Provincial Police and local search and Rescue volunteers would take care of you.
Last winter, a friend paddled out to an island in Superior for some ice climbing. A blizzard hit, so he snuggled in for a couple of days. He had left a rescue plan with his designated rescue coordinator, and the plan included extra days in case of bad weather, but a nosy neighbour noticed that he was not home and called in the air force from Trenton, who dropped a radio to my friend, who had a nice conversation with the plane, explaining that he was having a very nice time, and that he did not need rescuing.
He says he spent the next few days wondering if he would have to pay a bill for the flight. Being the asshole I am, I told him the bill would be approximately $1,500 per kilometer plus the cost of the radio and parachute. Unfortunately, I was not able to stop laughing, so he figured out that I was pulling his chain. It does raise an interesting point, though, for if fees were charged, then one would expect it to put a chill on good samaritans such as the nosy neighbour. That would be a bad thing, for although it would lessen the number of needless rescue calls, it would also reduce the number of necessary rescue calls, leading to needless deaths.
Really? Cite? I suppose it’s possible, given the recent rash of cases where fishermen were rescued multiple times in the same year, however, I had not heard of this until now. And, FTR, I’m in the CG now, and did ice rescue on Lake Michigan about ten years ago. I know we didn’t charge then.
Aside from that, the only time we charge for services is when we give boaters fuel. Years ago, boaters, particularly commercial fishermen, would make a habit of saving money on fuel by not getting enough to return home. They did this knowing full well that a free tow, courtesy of the USCG, was just a VHF call away. The CG got wise to that. We now charge for the fuel, plus some, and that’s if (Big IF) we even go. If you’re not in distress, call SeaTow.
I was wondering if you were going to catch that post. :dubious:
I remember a framed cartoon that hung on the wall of a bar that catered to sailors and coasties. It depicted a cutter w/ the skipper looking down, from the deck, onto a couple of guys in a small fishing boat. He was hollering down to the guys, “Your wife says it’s time to get home, dinner’s ready!”
Yup, the ‘marine operator’. Another job we don’t do much of nowadays. Of course, we can still get away with limited ‘marine operator’ cases under the ‘preventative SAR’ clause. 
I’m glad you jumped in. I vaguely recall that some years ago there was some discussion of user fees for CG SAR services, or possibly services when it wasn’t quite serious enough an emergency. I’m wondering what the policy is on that.
I, for one, am quite appreciative of what the Coast Guard does, having hopped from a burning boat in the middle Block Island Sound to a 41’ Patrol Boat. An electrical fire at sea can ruin your whole day.
Here’s our policy, straight from the U.S. Coast Guard Addendum to the United States National Search and Rescue Supplement (NSS) to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual (IAMSAR) [WARNING! .pdf!]:
Those are the only two instances that I can recall where we’ll recover costs. In a nutshell, our SAR policy is simple: if you’re in distress, we’re coming to get you, no charge regardless of results. If you’re not in distress but need assistance: call a commercial salvor, or we can call a commercial salvor for you; call a friend; we can invite a good samaritin to come help you via a MARB - maritime assistance request broadcast. Failing all of that, we’ll come and get you, no charge. (Because if we just left you out there, you’d be in distress!)
I spent four years in an area where commercial assistance was not available and MARBs were not effective. We would routinely tow rec boats back to port when they had engine troubles, ran out of gas, etc., all at no cost. We were happy to do it, especially as there wasn’t much else to do. Many times, people would try to pay us, and we politely declined every time and reminded them that this is why they pay their federal taxes. It was not uncommon to find a case or two of beer on the station doorstep later that evening.
Maybe what I recalled was the change from an old policy, which basically was that the CG would come get you if you needed any sort assistance, to one where vessels in safe condition but with problems would be sent to the commercial salvors first. As I recall that was about the time that SeaTow and its competitors got big, probably not coincidentally.
It is my understanding that those commercial salvors/tow boats were precisely the reason for the policy (and law) change. You’re absolutely right that there was a time when we would render assistance regardless of severity, or lack thereof. The commercial guys complained to their congressional representatives because, obviously, they could not compete with 24/7 operation that did it for free. From the manual linked above:
This policy is still the subject of much discussion and some debate in the CG. The line as to what constitutes distress isn’t always clear, and, as you know, it may be a matter of interpretation. Nonetheless, we always reserve the right to step in whenever we deem a situation, or a proposed course of action, unsafe.