A Different View of SAR

[ChrisB]

Dramatic rescue near Glacier Peak

The above link is a story about a recent mishap and helo rescue on the Pacific Crest Trail. The hiker was ill-prepared, used poor judgement and almost died.

But....

No where in this story (appearing in local WA media) is it suggested she be punished, pay for the pull-out, be penalized for her poor judgement or have the Federal government pick up the cost.

So what has the state of Washington got that NH hasn't got???

IDEA: The AMC, as a national outdoor organization, draws people into high risk (backcountry) areas and activities. Why don't they, in partnership with an insurance company, offer rescue insurance to members and non-members alike. (The American Alpine Club has been doing this for decades.)

cb

 

[Hillwalker]

Totally agree with this - campaign?

 

[peakbagger]

I agree real functional rescue insurance would be the way to go. One of the VFTT members had a background in underwriting and once gave a fairly good reason why the market was insufficient to make underwriting such a policy not viable. Somewhat like the American Care Act, the way to keep costs low is to have a wide population of low risk folks to pay in to cover the minority that may need a payout. The way to do this is to make it mandatory so that a large number of people pay in. The problem with non mandatory insurance is the high risk folks may tend to buy it while the low risk folks will avoid it. Therefore revenue will not cover the possible expenses unless the cost is quite high. Unless there are trail side kiosks to sell the insurance I expect the vast majority of the hiking public will not buy coverage which is currently the case with the Hike Safe Cards. The numbers are probably there if the insurance is mandatory but I dont see a practical way of actually administering it. Those that argue that those who dont buy it will have to pay for rescue will drive them to buy it discounts that many people feel that an accident will not happen to them.

One of the rationals for funding via an existing revenue stream like room and meals is the actual cost gets spread over a large population base by mandate so the individual cost is quite low.

I also expect that if there was mandatory way of recovering fees for rescue that the profit motive may step in. Currently there are quite few media reports of life flights via helicopter being billed to folks with or without insurance for tens of thousands of dollars. There are no regulations setting fees so many hospitals administering these programs bill them to the max. I wouldn't be surprised if the specter of paid rescuers asking for a credit card would appear as an option if there was ready way of receiving funding.

 

[Nessmuk]

Not that I like paying NY's high income and other taxes, and I don't know where WA falls on the tax rate scale, but we note that NH is one of those states that does not have an income or sales tax. Free stuff goes only so far before someone has to pay. Maybe there's a broader message here.

I am a long time volunteer SAR member in NY, and we are generally managed during SAR incidents by paid DEC rangers. The vast majority of NY SAR incidents are handled and paid for exclusively by the DEC without calling in volunteer or other assistance. AFAIK, there is no serious talk moving forward of charging subjects for SAR assistance in NY.

 

[ChrisB]

I agree real functional rescue insurance would be the way to go...

The American Alpine Club offers its rescue insurance through a partnership with Global Rescue. The AAC basic membership is $80 per year. and includes $7,500 of insurance.

Here are the specifics from the Global Rescue website:

As an AAC member, you have two options. The first is the benefit included with your membership: $7,500 worth of Global Rescue services to the trailhead. Global Rescue absorbs the first $7,500 of costs;you pay the rest. When an AAC member upgrades to the Full Global Rescue Membership, available either per trip or for an annual term, they are provided with up to $500,000 of rescue and evacuation services. For full Global Rescue members, services don't end at the trailhead – members are transported to a medical facility and those who need to be hospitalized after a rescue can choose to be transported back to their home country hospital of choice. For example, rather than spending a month in the Interlaken Regional Hospital in Switzerland, Global Rescue will bring you back home on a medically-equipped aircraft or with a medical team on a commercial flight to be hospitalized close to your friends, family, and own doctors who can provide continuity of care as you recover.

Full Global Rescue members also benefit from Global Rescue’s best-in-class medical advisory services, offered in conjunction with partners at Johns Hopkins Department of Emergency Medicine Division of Special Operations, consistently ranked the #1 medical institution in the U.S. since 1990. AAC members get a 5% discount off this upgraded service, with individual plans starting at $119.


I'm not sure this model would work in the Whites based on it's cost and third-party nature. But with some creative thinking I'm sure the AMC, ATC, or another organization could come up with something similar at a reasonable price and pitch it as a benefit of membership.

And given the nature of rescue in NH, capping the benefit at $25,000 would probably be adequate and discourage over eager med flight companies from taking advantage.

cb

 

[JoshandBaron]

Not that I like paying NY's high income and other taxes, and I don't know where WA falls on the tax rate scale, but we note that NH is one of those states that does not have an income or sales tax. Free stuff goes only so far before someone has to pay. Maybe there's a broader message here.

WA doesn't have an income tax.

WA SAR overview: https://mil.wa.gov/other-links/search-and-rescue-sar-program

 

[JoshandBaron]

The American Alpine Club offers its rescue insurance through a partnership with Global Rescue. The AAC basic membership is $80 per year. and includes $7,500 of insurance.

I pay ~$20 a year through SPOT for $100k annual coverage. (Two $50k rescues)

It should be noted that it is on top of a subscription fee that I have lost track of at this point. Maybe I paid something like $180 total this year?

 

[JoshandBaron]

Very interesting -- are there specific limitations or standards as to what SPOT will cough up for payment, for instance, like negligence (whatever that standard might be wherever you happen to be rescued)?

The full list of exclusions can be found here: http://www.geostravelsafety.com/assets/pdf/GEOS-SAR-BENEFIT-TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.pdf

As they relate to negligence: 9. Negligent and willful exposure to dangerous situations except in an attempt to save human life. This does not exclude reasonable dangers associated with normal activities that a normally prepared person would engage in.
10. Inadequate provision, training or competence needed to safely complete the trip being undertaken, as defined by regular participants of stated activity.

 

[ChrisB]

WA doesn't have an income tax.

WA SAR overview: https://mil.wa.gov/other-links/search-and-rescue-sar-program

No mention is made in the WA SAR material about how it is funded. But it sure does not seem to be a system that tags those rescued with the cost.

A couple of interesting passages from that web link:

Search and Rescue (SAR) in the State of Washington is governed primarily by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) chapter 38.52. This law defines search and rescue, assigns responsibilities for SAR, establishes the position and duties of the state coordinator for SAR Operations (SAR coordinator), and establishes the extensive liability protection and compensation program which protects SAR volunteers in the State of Washington.

There are 600-700 SAR missions a year in the state.

Search and Rescue resources within the state come primarily from citizen volunteers, more than 5,000 strong, who cooperate with local law enforcement, giving of their time and personal resources to train and to search for and rescue lost and injured people.


So I still ask... What has WA got the NH ain't got??

cb

 

[jfb]

So I still ask... What has WA got the NH ain't got??

Land? Maybe because to its size, Washington doesn't attract as many out-of-staters and the SAR funding goes primarily to residents.

 

[egilbe]

Population density of Southern New England, outside of New Hampshire, is way larger than the population of Washington. I'd guess that 90% of SAR are not for residents of the state of NH.

Washington State has 7 million people. The greater Boston area has 8 million.

 

[JoshandBaron]

No mention is made in the WA SAR material about how it is funded. But it sure does not seem to be a system that tags those rescued with the cost.

A couple of interesting passages from that web link:

Search and Rescue (SAR) in the State of Washington is governed primarily by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) chapter 38.52. This law defines search and rescue, assigns responsibilities for SAR, establishes the position and duties of the state coordinator for SAR Operations (SAR coordinator), and establishes the extensive liability protection and compensation program which protects SAR volunteers in the State of Washington.

There are 600-700 SAR missions a year in the state.

Search and Rescue resources within the state come primarily from citizen volunteers, more than 5,000 strong, who cooperate with local law enforcement, giving of their time and personal resources to train and to search for and rescue lost and injured people.


So I still ask... What has WA got the NH ain't got??

cb

"The responsibility for land search and rescue operations rests with the “local chief law enforcement officer” (usually the County Sheriff)," as opposed to state fish and game. What WA has that NH doesn't is sales tax. Counties are able to levy additional voter-approved sales tax on top of the state sales tax. "Public Safety Sales Tax" is something some counties use. So, I guess what WA has that NH doesn't is folks willing to pay taxes to adequately fund services?

 

[egilbe]

Outside of levying a tax on out of state residents, I'm ok with those requiring rescue to be billed for the costs.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

"The responsibility for land search and rescue operations rests with the “local chief law enforcement officer” (usually the County Sheriff)," as opposed to state fish and game. What WA has that NH doesn't is sales tax. Counties are able to levy additional voter-approved sales tax on top of the state sales tax. "Public Safety Sales Tax" is something some counties use. So, I guess what WA has that NH doesn't is folks willing to pay taxes to adequately fund services?

My current understanding is that Search & Rescue in New Hampshire is currently a State function administered by the NH F&G and that the NH F&G dept is chronically underfunded given that mandate, yes?

Given that, it is easy for us to think up new, or existing, State taxes that could be diverted to the NH F&G to cover the annual budgetary shortfall.

However, those suggestions ignore that fact there isn't a consensus that S&R should be a government service. I have read many posts on this board stating each rescue should be paid by the person being rescued.

Some posts on this board seem to advocate that the NH State government provide that S&R service without fees or penalties for only NH State residents only; or for only those who are not reckless; or for only those who are not negligent; or for those who pay NH F&G fees only. Or some combination of all of that above....

Some posts on this board seem to want the S&R service to be funded at a local level like police and fire services. Or at the State level. Or the federal level.

 

[peakbagger]

I have a hard time figuring out what your point is but will comment on the F&G funding aspect and note about the VT approach.

In a recent radio interview the NH Fish and Game Executive Director broke with tradition and stated the S&R costs are a high profile issue but not the major financial issue facing the department right now. This is pretty rare as the "script" has always been that hiker S&R is convenient talking point with the legislature.http://www.nhpr.org/post/funding-hunting-decline-and-challenges-facing-nh-fish-game. Its worth listening to the show as he lays out the sources of funding and also explains some misconceptions. One point he made is that the OHRV fees are a pass through his budget, they administer the registrations but the Bureau of Trails gets the lions share of it.

You may or may not be aware that the NH legislature is composed of mostly older retirees and with a few rare exceptions like Jeb Bradley tend not to be hikers. The goal of the legislature is to pass the buck to maintain the sacred "no broad based taxes" pledge which is a "third wire" of NH politics. Generally the budget hearings are intentionally set up for some drama as the members of the budget committee are always looking for a way to get publicity and to point the fingers on "someone else" preferably out of state for what really is a long term functional under funding. I got the impression on the radio show that even the Director is aware that F&G is "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic".

Note Vermont until recently assigned S&R to the state police who will ill suited to deal with S&R and there were a couple of high profile incidences that forced them to change it. There have been several events in the past where 911 was called and the state troopers had a tough time responding as they could not understand that the victim was out in the woods. I talked to one thru hiker who reported a body at an AT campsite and it took hours for someone to respond and he had to be the one to tell the troopers how to reach the campsite as they were not even aware that the campsite existed. Their S&Rs tend to be far more tied to Ski resorts and the ski resorts tend to maintain staffing and experience to support rescues as it would be bad PR and they have far better control over the PR that gets generated. They post big signs that skiers crossing the resort boundary will be charged for rescue but I am not familiar if it actually happens. I expect if they had high mountain rescue much of the resources would come from NY or NH. I believe there was an attempt at coordinating rescues with volunteer groups more closely but havent followed the details.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

I have a hard time figuring out what your point is but will comment on the F&G funding aspect and note about the VT approach.

Hahahha, sorry.

When we start the discussion at "how to fund S&R with NH tax revenues" we are assuming that S&R should be a government function that should be funded at the State level.

Many people don't agree with either of those premises.

 

[TJsName]

Hahahha, sorry.

When we start the discussion at "how to fund S&R with NH tax revenues" we are assuming that S&R should be a government function that should be funded at the State level.

Many people don't agree with either of those premises.

We are also assuming that their should be S&R at all.

Of course, saying 'many people do X' isn't super meaningful. The only reasonable interpretation is that their isn't 100% consensus on the issue, which makes it like every other issue. This isn't to dismiss those who don't agree, but rather to raise the question: if there should be S&R, and it shouldn't be run by the state, who should run it and how will it be funded?

 

[ChrisB]

Hahahha, sorry.

When we start the discussion at "how to fund S&R with NH tax revenues" we are assuming that S&R should be a government function that should be funded at the State level.

Many people don't agree with either of those premises.

Right. If you advocate for a small government that you can drown in a bath tub, let them rescue themselves or pay the price.