Billing for Search and Rescue - the MRA's Position

[Kevin Rooney]

There's an interesting article in the latest (January, 2010) issue of the MRA Meridian Newsletter.

There's a reference to NH in the article.

The Meridian is a quarterly publication of the National Mountain Rescue Association.

 

[paul ron]

I tried opening the article but it has a problem. Tell us about it?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I tried opening the article but it has a problem. Tell us about it?

Hmm ... it's a .pdf file - do you have Adobe Reader loaded?

I tried doing a cut and paste into the BB window here, but it's difficult to read. Maybe give it another shot? Try a different PC?

Would rather not "tell you about it" as inevitably I'd put my own slant on the topic, and that's not the purpose of my post. The National Mountain Rescue Association is opposed to charging for SAR's, and they make a interesting case for their position.

 

[Dave Bear]

Interesting article Kevin, Thanks! So have you joined that Facebook page or is there a way to view the issues, and info on it without joining it?

 

[Craig]

Thanks for the link Kevin.

I thought the article presented the same old arguments that one would expect from a rescue organization. Nothing new other than suggesting that opponents of pay for rescue comment on news articles, something I don't believe would be helpful. No need to help a shameful effort at self promoting.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Interesting article Kevin, Thanks! So have you joined that Facebook page or is there a way to view the issues, and info on it without joining it?

No, I haven't joined, Dave. I didn't follow the links - on another BB there have been several posts re: the MRA's position, so I was already quite familiar with it. However, I thought people on VFTT might wish to see where they stand on it. They are, after all, the men and women who put it on the line each time, and they discuss these issues constantly. So, the arguments may seem "old and tired" to some; however, these are the experts in this field - perhaps their advice should be heeded.

 

[HAMTERO]

Daryl Miller

Anybody read the Daryl Miller piece below the rescue article? That guy is a legend on Denali.

 

[paul ron]

Sorry about that. I upgraded my reader n it's working fine now.

Thanks for the article.

 

[DrJJFate]

Thanks for posting!

 

[Tim Horn]

Very interesting article. I wonder why Search and Rescue at Sea is so different than Search and Rescue in the mountains? At Sea you get a membership to a group like Sea Tow (like AAA for boats) and if you need rescue you are covered. If you do not have a membership you get charged for your rescue. There is an expectation by boaters that if they need help it will cost them and yet they still call for rescue. The question is why do folks in the mountains feel that they are not responsible for their own actions. Instead of debating charges for rescue or not we should be establishing an insurance program to cover emergency rescues for climbers. In the end there is going to be very little public tax payer patience for us "dare devils" who put ourselves in risky situations and expect everyone else to pay for problems brought on by our considered actions. Putting all aside we need a system that ensures SAR is funded by those whom it serves and not the larger population who never venture off the beaten path. We should focus on how to make that happen and stop wasting time and energy on issues that seem to be created in order to be devisive. Perhaps we can move beyond the sound bite? Obviously I have no answer but I think we need to start asking better questions so we can move closer to a solution.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Very interesting article. I wonder why Search and Rescue at Sea is so different than Search and Rescue in the mountains? At Sea you get a membership to a group like Sea Tow (like AAA for boats) and if you need rescue you are covered. If you do not have a membership you get charged for your rescue. There is an expectation by boaters that if they need help it will cost them and yet they still call for rescue.

"Distressed vessel assistance", which Sea Tow provides, is not a SAR service.
The Coast Guard doesn't charge people.

In the end there is going to be very little public tax payer patience for us "dare devils" who put ourselves in risky situations and expect everyone else to pay for problems brought on by our considered actions.

Much more money is spent on SAR efforts for plain ol' lost and injured people than on the "daredevil faction", it's just that it doesn't make for good TeeVee (or "Taxpayer Outrage", over what amounts to pocket change in the grand budget.)
There is a great, if somewhat dated, article on this perception about SAR by the AAC, and although it's more specific to climbing, there is a lot of very interesting information there : Climbing Rescues in America: Reality Does Not Support ‘High-Risk, High-Cost’ Perception

Media coverage of these rescues—oftentimes on live television—brings public attention and scrutiny,and in some cases demands that climbers be held personally responsible for paying rescue costs since they are “risk-taking dare devils.” Over the past decade, some states have passed laws allowing the recovery of rescue costs—in some cases prompted by high-profile climbing rescues. Lost in the dramatic coverage of climbing rescues is an accurate, thorough and dispassionate analysis of the underlying issue.

Another interesting tidbit from the linked article (emphasis mine):

The United States National Search and Rescue Plan, which sets
domestic and international rescue policy for federal agencies, specifically rejects charging for rescues. The document states that participating agencies, among them the National Park Service and U.S. Coast Guard, “…agree that [search and rescue] services that they provide to persons in danger or distress will be without subsequent cost recovery from the person(s) assisted.”24 At one point in the mid-1990s, representatives of the Air Force, Navy, Army, Coast Guard, Civil Air Patrol, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service voted to no longer participate in search and rescue missions for agencies that charged fees for humanitarian missions. The National Park Service has a separate search and rescue policy that indicates it will not charge for rescues of any type within the national park system. Since 1940 the NPS has studied the cost recovery issue on five separate occasions, each time rejecting the idea. The most recent report, which focused on climbing rescues in Denali National Park, was issued in August 2001.

All the major SAR groups have long opposed charging for rescue. They aren't reaffirming it now just to get on the talk shows.

 

[Nessmuk]

A few years ago (30-ish years ), when I spent some time on Guam in the military, all new arrivals were required to attend a training class to get a "reef pass" before being allowed to swim at the beach. Guam is surrounded by a narrow but very razor sharp reef, inches below the surface and ringing the island from a few dozen up to a several hundred yards away from the shoreline. Between the reef and the shore is beautiful quiet relatively shallow water, full of swimmers and sea life, including some very nasty and deadly critters. Hence one reason for the reef pass class.

Waves break over the nearly continuous reef, and due to the breaking wave turbulence and sharp coral it would in most places be nearly impossible for a swimmer to safely swim or walk over the reef into deep open ocean without being torn to shreds. However there are occasional breaks in the reef. The water level inside the reef is slightly higher than outside due to the waves crashing over. So at the few breaks in the reef, the water rushes outward in hefty fashion with a very strong current. A swimmer has no hope of returning to solid shore once caught in the outflow. Another reason for reef pass class.

Word at the time was the coast guard (if they got notified at all) would pick up a swimmer by chopper from outside the reef for free the first time (if military that was another issue to be dealt with later). But on the second call it would cost the lucky swimmer $500 for the rescue.

The point is, people had to be aware of the danger, and awareness was well publicized for all island visitors (and mandated for the military). The first survivable mistake was forgiven (for civilians), but the second would cost real money. Seems reasonable to me.