How to Cover the Costs of Mountain Mishaps

[sierra]

No doubt controversial as a discussion as always. Interesting to see that many of the same arguments about rescues have existed for decades. Only as an opinion and not necessarily my personal beliefs but have we evolved positively as a hiking community, or have we actually contributed to emergency events since when the article was written in Appalachia. I remember when Cell Phones first arrive in The White Mountains. That was the beginning of the onslaught of technology available to the common man which was received by the community controversially. Would be interesting if the number of rescues has increased or decreased. Also are those rescues more successful given the onset of technology. Probably not a tangible number but has the increased technology actually educated the general hiking community or actually contributed to the decline in self-reliance?

The points you bring up, could make for a lengthy and interesting discussion. I once stated somewhere that cell phones have resulted in more calls to SAR and multiple people on whatever site I was on, disputed that opinion. I still find it hard to believe that is not the case, just by personal experience. I got lost in the Pemi once in December, this was pre cell phone. I just worked on finding my way out until I did, that was the only option afforded to me. I got hurt in CO and didn't carry my phone at the time (no coverage why bother) Took me almost 20 hours to get out, zero other options. In those two cases, how many of todays hikers would have called for help? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm tough, I just had no choice, but given the choice, how many of todays hikers would call?

 

[Salty]

Maybe for NH when F&G shows up, they present an estimate of recovery costs and ask "are you sure you need rescuing?" Those truly in need won't hesitate (nor get billed).

I am just kidding of course...

 

[DayTrip]

In those two cases, how many of todays hikers would have called for help? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm tough, I just had no choice, but given the choice, how many of todays hikers would call?

I think it is just a generational thing. Younger people are "trained" to ask for help, told there is no shame in failure, etc. Self reliance seems like a dying character trait. I've only had 2 significant mishaps hiking (a severely sprained ankle and a dislocated shoulder) and I never at any point thought I should call for help. My first thought was "OK this is pretty serious. How do I get myself out of the woods?". Fortunately I was able to do so on both occasions so I'm not really sure what I would have done otherwise. I had a cell phone and PLB for the ankle but not the shoulder (That incident prompted me to get a PLB though). I've also had a few occasions where I'd lost the trail too and never thought to do anything else but figure it out with my map and GPS.

EDIT: And before I get roasted I'm not saying that getting hurt is a failure or worthy of shame. As usual I'm probably not accurately conveying my point about the modern thought process...

 

[B the Hiker]

I already have a solution to the cost of rescues in NH, but it's not widely accepted. First off, the Hike Safe card is not the answer, nice try, actually terrible try. If you are rescued in NH, regardless of why, you get an itemized bill and are responsible for the whole cost. If you need too, you can be put on a payment plan. I could never figure out, why everyone runs around trying to figure out how to pay for something and they give it out for free. You broke your leg, ok it happens, not your fault. But the 25 people that went up and carried you down and slipped you into a waiting ambulance need to be covered for their effort and time, period. Can someone explain to me why this is a bad plan?

The last thing we want is someone not calling for a rescue because they feel they cannot afford it.

 

[David Metsky]

The last thing we want is someone not calling for a rescue because they feel they cannot afford it.

Or delaying calling for help until the situation deteriorates and turns a routine assist into a dangerous rescue.

 

[sierra]

The last thing we want is someone not calling for a rescue because they feel they cannot afford it.

Whenever someone makes this comment, I just shake my head. It's ridiculous and completely unfounded that this will happen. But you and me not agreeing on something is nothing new.

 

[skiguy]

Whenever someone makes this comment, I just shake my head. It's ridiculous and completely unfounded that this will happen. But you and me not agreeing on something is nothing new.

I'll agree with you. There is really no data or solid information to back up this theory. Much of it is based on rescue personal's comments rather than any statistical analysis. Not to be belittle their expertise in any way but IMO their comments on this matter are based upon opinion rather than fact. Stating that is just my opinion.

 

[dug]

If you are lost, are you liable for injuries incurred by your rescuers?

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily...ge-lawsuit-missing-hikers-20140628-story.html

Concern over climbers waiting until too late to call, causing a potentially more dangerous rescue:

https://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/topic/2305-more-rescue-related-stuff/?tab=comments#comment-31409
"Still, why waste taxpayers money rescuing climbers indulging in their need for adventure? Because charging for rescues would have a string of unintended negative consequences. The most vocal opponents of rescue fees, it turns out, are not climbers, but rescuers.

Charging for rescues would lead stranded climbers to delay calls for help until the last possible minute, increasing the risk to climber and rescue crew alike, says Charley Shimansky, education director of the Mountain Rescue Association, a group representing 3,000 search-and-rescue volunteers."

https://www.williamsnews.com/news/2019/jun/26/prescott-man-said-he-lost-his-way-hike-rescue-crew/
After spotting a safe landing zone for the helicopter, the observer hiked to Saville’s location and escorted him to the helicopter. The topography where Saville was found features steep canyons and rocky terrain along these waterways.

Saville expressed concern that he would have to pay for the search effort. However, YCSO Public Information Officer Dwight D’Evelyn said that has “never the case,” and YCSO “does not want anyone to ever avoid calling for help because of cost concerns.”





Unfortunately, the very thing we are, or should be, taught, could also make it worse for those very people tasked to do assist should you not be able to. Pride is a wonderful thing, until it gets you killed and endangers others.

And, correct, any evidence is what rescuers fear may happen, I can't find any examples of it actually happening...yet.

 

[sierra]

Or delaying calling for help until the situation deteriorates and turns a routine assist into a dangerous rescue.

You really think injured people are going to lay there with their condition deteriorating pondering a high bill? I just don't agree with that position at all.

 

[DayTrip]

You really think injured people are going to lay there with their condition deteriorating pondering a high bill? I just don't agree with that position at all.

I'd think people would be more likely to wait to call for rescue in scenarios like being lost or proceeding further and further into dangerous terrain or weather. It never seems as bad until you've gone well over that line. I think when most people have had an accident and are actually hurt they wouldn't hesitate to call for a rescue regardless of cost.

 

[maineguy]

It's only a matter of time before there is a real catastrophe involving a rescue, like a helicopter crashing with great loss of life. If you read The Last Traverse, that story could have had a really, really sad ending. Those pilots did some remarkable flying and risked their lives because a couple of hikers were out in conditions that they should not have been in. And when this catastrophe occurs, there will be such a hue and a cry raised that something will have to be done. It always takes a disaster for things to change.

 

[sierra]

It's only a matter of time before there is a real catastrophe involving a rescue, like a helicopter crashing with great loss of life. If you read The Last Traverse, that story could have had a really, really sad ending. Those pilots did some remarkable flying and risked their lives because a couple of hikers were out in conditions that they should not have been in. And when this catastrophe occurs, there will be such a hue and a cry raised that something will have to be done. It always takes a disaster for things to change.

What really annoys me is the hypocrisy among the hiking community. People raise the issue of rescuers being put in danger and the lack of funding for the SAR community over and over. When Albert Dow was killed, everybody decried the irresponsible backcountry users putting SAR in danger. Funding and cost come up as an issue all the time. Yet when you make any reasonable suggestion to remedy either problem, everybody throws their hands up and says, you cant do that, it not safe, nobody will call for a rescue. I guess I'm willing to address the issues and find a solution. You go into the backcountry, there is a level of responsibility that must be assumed. Granted, I'm single and my life has never been rainbows and unicorns, so maybe that's the disconnect. Things can stay the same, but the next time a SAR person is hurt or killed, because someone didn't have a headlamp and wasn't going to be home by supper and a freak storm over takes them. At least we can say they weren't afraid to call for help, thank God for that. I'll be over here keeping my mouth shut about it.

 

[dug]

I'd think people would be more likely to wait to call for rescue in scenarios like being lost or proceeding further and further into dangerous terrain or weather. It never seems as bad until you've gone well over that line. I think when most people have had an accident and are actually hurt they wouldn't hesitate to call for a rescue regardless of cost.

Correct. Certainly plausible someone could be lost, but confident they can find a way out and only get themselves more lost. One reason COULD be over the cost, could be embarrassment, could be pride. Seems counterintuitive to suggest not being self-reliant, and there is a fine-line, but SAR seem to suggest they'd rather you err on the side of caution and call/seek help then wait.

 

[DayTrip]

One reason COULD be over the cost, .

That was my thought. 2 guys loose the trail and realize they don't know where they are. "I'm not paying some guy $1,000 to come walk us out of the woods. I think that ridge line is where we came from. Let's go that way..." Que the dropping temperatures and rain as it gets dark.

 

[Nessmuk]

Another important cause for delay is ego. I can't tell you how many SAR incidents I have been on when some guy goes missing, perhaps a hunter who did not come out to meet his partners when and where they thought he should have. Usually family members are involved. They begin to conduct their own unsuccesful land search as the hours tick by. Finally, late in the day they admit they cannot find the guy and call the authorites, much too late to plan, gather resouces, and mount a formal incident search except perhaps for a couple of forest rangers (if available) doing a quick Type 1 "hasty" search (rough roadside/trailside) before it gets totally dark. Unless it is a child, or someone who has a severe medical condition, chances are the continued search will be delayed until the next morning when further resources can be called to task (if available). But the subject's friends were CERTAIN that with their skill and deep knowledge of the area they ccould have by themselves easily found him before dinner time. Maybe the thought of an official cost penalty is in the back of their minds as well. SAR delayed.

 

[Mike P.]

It's only a matter of time before there is a real catastrophe involving a rescue, like a helicopter crashing with great loss of life. If you read The Last Traverse, that story could have had a really, really sad ending. Those pilots did some remarkable flying and risked their lives because a couple of hikers were out in conditions that they should not have been in. And when this catastrophe occurs, there will be such a hue and a cry raised that something will have to be done. It always takes a disaster for things to change.

Going back in the Way Back VFTT machine, we did lose a VFTT'er when he went out to attempt Shasta and a helicopter did crash during that search. It was at least one and two major VFTT implosions and was back when rec.backcountry and rec.climbing were all together.

 

[skiguy]

Again a lot of hypothetical scenarios with out any hardened facts. I think Sierra’s last post speaks tons. Can someone please site an incident where the victim stated that they would have called but they were afraid of being charged? Not saying it isn’t possible that it might occur but isn’t it possible hypothetically that maybe just the opposite might be true. That charging for every rescue might actually be a deterrent in the number of rescues. Neither instance has no direct proof. Again people’s responses including my own are merely based in opinions. Thank goodness for our SAR community but they are trained in just that rescue and that is the job they should do. The entire situation is bigger including psychosocial parameters and fiscal concerns. I do appreciate the SAR community’s insightful info but basing decisions on just their opinions is not the whole picture. There are other authoritative issues involved on how to fund rescues that they are not qualified to answer that affect the overall outcome.

 

[dug]

Again a lot of hypothetical scenarios with out any hardened facts. I think Sierra’s last post speaks tons. Can someone please site an incident where the victim stated that they would have called but they were afraid of being charged? Not saying it isn’t possible that it might occur but isn’t it possible hypothetically that maybe just the opposite might be true. That charging for every rescue might actually be a deterrent in the number of rescues. Neither instance has no direct proof. Again people’s responses including my own are merely based in opinions. Thank goodness for our SAR community but they are trained in just that rescue and that is the job they should do. The entire situation is bigger including psychosocial parameters and fiscal concerns. I do appreciate the SAR community’s insightful info but basing decisions on just their opinions is not the whole picture. There are other authoritative issues involved on how to fund rescues that they are not qualified to answer that affect the overall outcome.

Yes, they are opinions. Educated opinions, which is more than most of can say, but opinions none the less.

Pride/Ego is likely a bigger concern.