The cost of the rescues for obvious risky ventures like mountain climbing annoys me too. It seems to me that a requirement for attempting these risky ventures on government property should be proof of insurance by the individual(s) that would guarantee the government would be reimbursed for rescue costs. I am sure some insurance companies would cover this. Just a thought.
What column is this in reference to?
Good column. I liked the “yuppie 911” zinger.
I admit I get a little annoyed at those who foolishly attempt feats that any reasonable person would know they’re unqualified for, and then call for a rescue at taxpayer expense. I would support a law like Oregon’s, permitting the rescued person to be billed for the rescue, either a minimum flat fee or a maximum along a sliding scale based on the rescued person’s ability to pay.
Cecil answered the question in pure economic terms, and his conclusion showed that (1) it really doesn’t happen as often as folks would think, and (2) the cost is a relative pittance in the overall scheme of the federal budget. If we were all Vulcans, that would be enough to justify the expense. But what I find interesting is that it seems a common attitude that daredevils don’t really deserve this service, regardless of the cost (I really don’t mean to make this attitude seem cruel or heartless, just trying to identify it as a real thing).
I’ve been doing a little reading lately on the concept of “conditional reciprocity”, a term used by essayist Amy Wax to describe certain underlying expectations in social welfare recipients:
I wonder if this is another example of this same underlying principle…daredevils seem to fail the test of making “reasonable effort, consistent with ability, to protect himself and his family,” (NOTE: I substituted “protect” for “support”), so trhey are undeserving of this government service and should be weeded out.
Look, there are always going to be a few nutters who push the reasonable risk envelope and lose, resulting in public resources being used to clean up the mess, starting with getting them to a hospital resulting from taking on some sort of unreasonable risk, e.g. smoking, drunk driving, speeding, doing drugs, being obese through over-eating, living in Detroit, owning a handgun, having a spouse, walking on a sidewalk in town, walking on a trail in the middle of nowhere, etc.
The question then is what is reasonable and what is unreasonable?
Outdoor adventure recreation is generally accepted as being reasonable – urban, state and nation parks and wilderness areas are hugely popular. Entire industries have developed around fishing, hunting, power boating, hiking, biking, paddling, climbing, skiing, etc. Many tourism centred communities are focussed on such recreation, e.g. Banff, Ely, Jackson. Before deciding on how rescue services should be funded, think carefully about the chill effect on tourism.
If it is extreme sports (for example, rock climbing) that you are opposed to, have a look at who tends to be requiring rescue. Usually they don’t have a pot to piss in anyway, so they are essentially judgment proof. Requiring full indemnity for recues would just end up raising the administrative costs with little to show for it
Requiring full indemnity would lead to deaths due to rescue contact persons hesitating to call for help when their party is overdue. It would also lead to deaths due to the parties themselves hesitating to call for help – note that hypothermia prevents clear thinking.
In general, I suggest that it is best to continue to rescue people in distress and cover all or most of it out of the public purse, be it for an urban rescue or a wilderness rescue, a popular activity (e.g. driving) or a less popular activity (e.g. skiing).
The next problem is which part or parts of the public purse should be used to pay for rescue costs -– local, provincial/state, federal, or some combination. Expecting a tiny communities to solely fund rescue services for popular destinations is not a good plan, so bringing higher levels of government into the funding mix makes a lot of sense.
For destinations that are particularly subject to a disproportionate rate of rescues, there’s a lot to be said for mitigation the cost through regulation of access (e.g. venue closure based on conditions, or requirement of proof of competency). This sort of mitigation already takes place in non-extreme activities (e.g. driving), and is common in many outdoor adventure activities by way of limiting the number of permits and by encouraging the use of licensed guides.
For a very few extreme adventure activities that are connected with highly popular venues, permitting including a requirement for rescue insurance can steer the cost onto the nutters and off the backs of the general public. Outdoor adventure recreation insurance not necessarily easy to find, but when you find it, it tends to be cheap as dirt, for despite the scare mongering, outdoor adventures seldom need rescue. (BTW, Alpine Club of Canada and the American Alpine Club both offer it for hiking, climbing and mountaineering, both domestically and internationally. For folks who go adventuring outside of their local area, check out what rescue costs you may or may not have to pay for in the jurisdiction you will be visiting. For example residents of British Columbia are not charged for rescue in B.C., but non-residents there are (albeit at a significantly discounted rate of only $2,800/hr plus ground ambulance).)
There’s a lot to be said for educating people to the risks of their activities (be they outdoor adventure activities or not), promoting the development of activity specific knowledge and skill, and providing information on rescue insurance (ranging from when it may be needed to where it can be obtained).
Yes, I think that is a large part of it. I would add that one needs to remember that a suburban who drives to work, works at a desk, smokes at breaks, eats mostly comfort food, goes fishing in a small boat on the weekend with a case of beer but not wearing a PFD, and does not get aerobic exercise, may very well consider wilderness white water paddling, or backcountry skiing, or rock climbing to be unreasonable risks, whereas the outdoor adventure participant would look at that person and consider him to be a disaster waiting to happen. It’s a matter of the grass on the other side of the fence looking nastier — mean, nasty, dangerous cut grass. We are responsible – they are not. Our decisions are reasonable – theirs are not. Our risks are negligible – theirs are not.
The actual question I sent Cecil was drastically edited before being published; which I guess serves me right for being too long winded for a newspaper column.
Nonetheless, the unedited version of my question made it clear that I wasn’t talking about dangerous recreational activities; I was very specifically talking about off the wall stunts.
Here’s the real question I sent in, before it was edited down to printable length…
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Jim Huff <j***f@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you ever read the news (an activity that is of dubious benefit these
> days), you’ll have read probably numerous stories where someone had to be
> rescued from an idiotic situation that they put themselves in on purpose.
>
> For example, I have here a story titled “Man rescued from bubble in
> Atlantic”. Here we have a man who decided he would try to cross 1000 miles
> of ocean from Florida to Bermuda in an inflatable bubble. Now, I’m not
> necessarily calling this man an idiot, but he knew the dangers inherent with
> this feat before he began, and in fact early in his journey the Coast Guard
> tried to convince him to give up, and (according to the story) he refused.
> Then several days later, he had to be rescued via helicopter.
>
> My point it, that helicopter rescue probably wasn’t cheap. Someone has to
> pay for it, and I have a suspicion that it ends up being you and me. This
> is just one single example of something that probably happens all the time.
>
> So, is there anything to deter people from doing dangerous or stupid things
> on purpose, just because they know if things go wrong they will get a free
> rescue. Do you think this guy would have attempted his inflatable bubble
> feat if he knew noone would rescue him, or if he had to pay a stiff fine for
> being rescued? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people should have to pay
> for legitimate accidents, even if it’s caused by stupidity, but in so many
> cases you’ve got people who willfully and knowingly put their lives in
> danger; why should I have to pay for it?
>
>
> -Jim, Baltimore, MD
Mountain climbing to be a widely practiced recreational activity, albeit a semi-dangerous one. Those aren’t the people I’m complaining about here. Yes, they engage in a dangerous activity, but these people don’t go into it knowing that without the availability of a rescue team, there’s a 90% chance they will die. They mostly go into it thinking they are well prepared and that everything will work out fine.
Such is not the case with people who do retarded things, like trying to cross 1000 miles of ocean in an inflatable bubble. This isn’t a common recreational activity we’re talking about here. This is someone who is intentionally putting himself in harms way; someone who knows that what he’s doing will very likely result in his death unless someone rescues him; someone who was warned to stop what he was doing and refused. Yet still, we let him go ahead with his stunt, then rescue him at sea, costing probably tens of thousands of dollars.
Let’s put it another way. Ice Hockey is dangerous. I don’t think we should stop people from playing Ice Hockey though, or refuse to help when they get hurt. But if someone decides to play a game of Ice Hockey while skating on his hands, naked with his stick jammed up his ass, it’s generally understood that this person is very likely going to get hurt and shouldn’t be allowed to carry on that way.
Of course, in our free society, unless there’s a law against it I guess they just have to let you do it. I would say though that there should be some kind of law defining monetary penalties for reckless behavior that results in the need for rescue. It would be a very hard thing to draw a line on what constitutes such an infraction, but in the extreme cases, like the one I mentioned where the guy was warned and offered assistance early on and refused, it’s pretty clear cut.
I’m not really criticizing Cecil’s answer here. It was a good answer, and I appreciate it. I was painted as a bit of an asshole, partly because my real question was edited down (again, my own fault for being long winded). I’m not upset about it though; it goes with the territory of writing in to the Straight Dope.
“Taxpayers” as a whole don’t pick up the tab for lost or injured mountain climbers. Hunters do. We pay for it even though we barely use the services since we generally know what we’re doing in the woods and don’t need to be rescued.
We don’t mind, for the most part. It’s sort of a public service that we do. It would be nice if someone said thanks, but I’m not holding my breath.
Here are the stats for NH, most other states are similar:
Debaser, that’s great info, and it makes sense if that’s how it works at the state level. I think in the example of the inflatable ball guy, it was the Coast Guard that rescued him, so I’d assume that’s paid for by the feds and not state hunting / boating license fees (although maybe the feds cover the cost by some kind of licensing fees too, I don’t know).
Another similar question is, why do we put so much effort into rescuing hostages in foreign countries when the dummies shouldn’t have been there in the first place? Case in point, the jerk-off who went to North Korea and tore up his passport at the airport (of course I’m going on the mainstream story from the media here; I don’t know firsthand if that’s how it went down). If the story is true though, why would we bother putting forth effort and probably lots of federal dollars to rescue him.
Again I’m not talking about people who are in unfortunate circumstances, even if they knew they were taking a risk - like a reporter in a war zone. I’m talking about people who take deliberate action to intentionally get into those situations. A war reporter knows there’s a risk of being taken hostage, but he doesn’t typically intentionally put himself into his captor’s hands. The guy who went to North Korea and tore up his passport though should know what the outcome would be, and now we’re going to go and spend time and money trying to rescue him?
If Uncle Cecil is reading this, I think that would make an excellent followup question to my original one about dare devils.
Also consider that the majority of “boots on the ground” when it comes to S&R in NH come from volunteer organizations although F&G has the responsibility for organizing. If a chopper is called in the cost of the rescue goes way up but most of the folks out searching and littering victims out of the woods are fellow hikers who volunteer their time.
The issue is complex and could certainly stand a review and some improvements. Different areas of the country (and the world) should probably have different schemes since the needs are often quite different.
If the concern is about the cost of rescuing truly extreme risk takers (e.g. the trans-Atlantic bubble guy), then it really is de minimus and should not factor into how the system is structured.
As others have pointed out, while your information is good, it’s for a specific type of SAR in a particular area, and doesn’t account for the volunteers who may or may not be hunters themselves, etc. Keep in mind too that ATV and Snowmobile and Boat registrations are various different groups that are paying for it as well. As you point out, hunters generally know what they’re doing and rarely need to be rescued. The same is true though of any experienced outdoorsman - the people they rescue from the water are almost always casual swimmers and boaters, not experienced whitewater rafters or kayakers. The hikers and climbers that need rescue are typically inexperienced as well, and without experienced guides.
In the St. Helens National Monument, you pay for a climbing pass to climb Mt St Helens which is really more high-level hike than actual climb, but a portion of that fund goes to pay for SAR. I’ve never needed SAR but have paid many times for SAR through climbing and hiking fees in WA state and national forests and monuments. No idea on the stats as to how much of those fees goes to SAR and how much goes to other management activities, but just as with experienced hunters, it’s the casual amateurs doing something only slightly dangerous who get stuck and lost most often, while the experienced guys who pay the most for it tend not to ever need it.
Then there’s the people like the bubble guy, who really ought to be funding their own rescue plans. Pretty sure Coast Guard is funded directly by taxpayers though, so that’s a whole different story.
Your link doesn’t work.
That bubble guy is certainly an idiot. Anyone thinking about such a stunt should consider “what would happen if this doesn’t work?” and plan accordingly. Such as having a boat follow him just in case.
From the article:
I had to read that twice. “Wait, if you double zero percent, isn’t that still zero percent?” Oh.
Sure, it’s not that expensive overall to rescue the occasional overconfident daredevil, but what does it cost to rectify the easily foreseeable and inevitable damage caused to buildings built on flood plains, below sea level (New Orleans), atop earthquake faults, and on the slopes of volcanoes? I guess even that wouldn’t bother me TOO much if the public paid to relocate them to someplace safe, but rebuilding on the very same spot :smack: is an example of the classic observation about insanity. And, with rising sea levels due to climate change already well under way, it ain’t gonna get any cheaper, people.
The same can be said for taxpayers picking up the tab for many bad lifestyle choices. Especially if this results in others making the same bad lifestyle choices.
What about people who don’t manage their diabetes and end up needing constant care? The expensive later life care for someone morbidly obese?
Or people who ski? Only a small portion of the public can afford to ski, why should they kick in for your expensive hobby? Or racecar drivers?
Where do you draw this line? Who gets to decide?
One hospital room,two patients, facing the end of life due to severe illness complicated by old age. One family says, let my loved one go. The other says make every effort. How’s that fit in it your idea?
What about a woman Drs advise don’t to have another baby, finds herself pregnant and chooses to pursue an expensive high risk pregnancy?
Can you see now how difficult this would be? To find consensus on even one of those things?
The Coast Guard does not charge people to be rescued (not going to hash that out in this post), but I can speak to what the estimated costs are to operate assets to rescue someone.
According to this article,
he was first approached by a USCG cutter and told to stop; I don’t know if they were on a routine patrol when they spoke with the him, so I won’t add up their costs.
What I will do is figure approximate costs for the aircraft using a document that shows the Coast Guard’s cost calculations in operating assets, and does so based on fuel, personnel operating the asset, and a host of other things (you could probably find the document, putting “hourly rates for coast guard cutters” into your search engine). There are “Inside Government Rates”; what we would charge another government entity, and “Outside Government Rates”; what we would charge everyone else and most likely what we would charge the rescued man in the bubble.
For this particular rescue a MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter and a HC-130 Hercules plane, both out of Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, FL, responded to the distress.
The MH-60 flew approx 4.5 hours and the HC-130 flew approx 4 hours.
The per hr cost for the MH-60 is $14,715 and for the HC-130 is $20,830, so some simple math puts the total costs per asset as $66,217 for the helicopter and $83,320 for the plane. So the boater is just shy of $150K in charges, if that was the way the Coast Guard did business.
I take your concluding “oh” to mean you figured out this out, but let me clarify just in case:
-
There were no climbing deaths on McKinley from 1903 through 1913.
-
There were deaths after 1913. Our sources didn’t give a breakdown for early years, but do say (a) there were 61 deaths between 1914 and 1990, and (b) there were 9 deaths in the 60s, 15 deaths in the 70s, and 34 deaths in the 80s.
-
Mountaineers quoted in our sources believe 1976 was the watershed year in terms of McKinley fatalities. Although we don’t have a precise breakdown of pre- and post-1976 fatalities, there were more than twice as many deaths in the 80s as there were in the 70s. This was the basis of our assertion that “fatalities more than doubled.” If that seems too casual, it’s an easy exercise to show that the average annual fatality rate from 1976 to 1985 was more than double that from 1966 to 1975.
We did mess up one thing. We said the average annual rescue cost between 1992 and 2007 was $3.5 million. In fact it was $3.7 million. We’ll correct this, and extend our thanks to readers for calling this to our attention.